Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Administration
January 2008
HQ-08368.INDD
2008 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts About FAA/AST
licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of
non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 49 United States
Code, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA/AST’s mission is to
ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign
policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA/AST
is directed to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional
information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA/AST’s web site at
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/.
NOTICE
Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such
products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Space Competitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Expendable Launch Vehicle Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Reusable Launch Vehicle Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Reentry Vehicles and In-Space Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Enabling Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Regulatory Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Significant 2007 Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Space Competitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Google Lunar X PRIZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
X PRIZE Cup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
America’s Space Prize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Centennial Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Expendable Launch Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Current Expendable Launch Vehicle Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Atlas V – United Launch Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Delta II – United Launch Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Delta IV – United Launch Alliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Minotaur I – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Pegasus XL – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Taurus – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Zenit-3SL – Sea Launch Company, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
ELV Development Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
ALV – Alliant Techsystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Aquarius – Space Systems/Loral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Eagle S-series – E’Prime Aerospace Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
FALCON SLV – Lockheed Martin Michoud Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Nanosat Launch Vehicle – Garvey Spacecraft Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Sprite SLV – Microcosm, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Minotaur IV and V.– Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
QuickReach – AirLaunch LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Taurus 2 – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Z-1 – Zig Aerospace, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Zenit-3SLB – Sea Launch Company, LLC, and Space International Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
NASA Exploration Launch Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Ares I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Ares V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Sounding Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Black Brant – Bristol Aerospace Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Oriole – DTI Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Terrier-Orion – DTI Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Hybrid Sounding Rocket Program – Lockheed Martin-Michoud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Hybrid Test Rocket – Lockheed Martin-Michoud and Nammo AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
SpaceLoft XL – UP Aerospace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Reusable Launch Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Commercial RLV Development Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Tiger & Cardinal – Acuity Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
MOD – Armadillo Aerospace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Non-Federal Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
California Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Cape Canaveral Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Kodiak Launch Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Mojave Air and Space Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
Oklahoma Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Federal Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Edwards Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
NASA Kennedy Space Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Reagan Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Vandenberg Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Wallops Flight Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
White Sands Missile Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Proposed Non-Federal Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Cecil Field Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Chugwater Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
South Texas Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Spaceport Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Spaceport America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Spaceport Sheboygan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Spaceport Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
West Texas Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Regulatory Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Private Human Space Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Experimental Launch Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Experimental Permit Compared to a License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Safety Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Operating Area Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
Key Flight-Safety Event Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Anomaly Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Guidance Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Amateur Rocket Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
What the FAA Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Class 1-Model Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Class 2-Large Model Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Class 3-High-Power Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
Class 4-Advanced High-Power Rockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Information Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Photo Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
List of Acronyms
AADC Alaska Aerospace Development ELTR Eastern Launch and Test Range
Corporation
ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle
ACES Air Collection and Enrichment System
ESA European Space Agency
AFB Air Force Base
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
AGL Above Ground Level
FALCON Force Application and Launch from
AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory CONUS
MARS Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport RSTS Range Safety and Telemetry System
MRTFB Major Range and Test Facility Base SLF Shuttle Landing Facility
XA eXtreme Altitude
Introduction
2007 was a year of continued steady progress launch vehicles (ELVs), reentry vehicles and in-
across the broad spectrum of technology sectors space technologies, enabling technologies such as
that together constitute the commercial space indus- propulsion and launch configurations, the evolving
try. Worldwide orbital launches occurred in num- array of U.S. spaceports, and new developments in
bers closely mirroring those of the previous two the regulatory arena.
years, demonstrating that the industry’s recovery
from the sharp downturn in launch activity earlier Whether new developments are highly publi-
in the decade has stabilized. Additionally, develop- cized occurrences or gradual changes, commercial
ment and testing of new expendable and reusable space transportation remains a dynamic industry.
launch vehicles continued, with several vehicles Providing a broad understanding of today’s com-
taking considerable steps toward operability. mercial launch sector requires examining a wide
range of topics. Information presented in this report
The space tourism industry also came into was compiled from open sources and through direct
greater definition in 2007. Virgin Galactic sur- communication with academic, federal, civil, and
passed its mark of 100 committed suborbital space- corporate organizations. Because many of the state-
flight passengers, and had garnered some $31 mil- ments herein are forward-looking, the most current
lion in revenues from ticket sales as the year information should be obtained by directly contact-
closed. Other companies and private financiers ing the organizations mentioned in this report.
funded exploration of alternative space tourism
vehicle and spaceport concepts. And in April 2007, Space Competitions
American software developer Charles Simonyi
In September 2007, a significant new interna-
became the fifth orbital space tourist to visit the
tional space prize competition was announced
International Space Station (ISS) aboard a Soyuz
encouraging the private exploration of the Moon.
flight sponsored by Space Adventures Ltd.
The Google Lunar X PRIZE was organized by the
X PRIZE Foundation with sponsorship from
Finally, commercialization initiatives proceed-
Google, along with strategic partnerships with
ed apace. Following its award of $500 million to
SpaceX, the SETI Institute, the Saint Louis Science
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and
Center, and the International Space University.
Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) in 2006 for the agency’s
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
The second X PRIZE Cup took place October
(COTS) program, NASA in 2007 withdrew the
27-28, 2007, at Holloman Air Force Base’s Air and
$174 million remaining in its award to RpK and
Space Expo, near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The
began a process of recompeting it among other
Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge was
vehicle developers. New Mexico again hosted the
held, featuring several rocket flights by Armadillo
X PRIZE Cup, where private vehicle developers
Aerospace under an FAA-issued experimental per-
competed a second time for X PRIZE Foundation
mit. Like the competition held in 2006, none of the
and NASA Centennial Challenges awards. And the
registered participants successfully completed the
United States Department of Defense (DoD), via a
challenge criteria. However, promising technologies
host of initiatives, continued to fund development
were flown and static displays provided interactive
of new vehicle families able to launch quickly and
education for the general public.
inexpensively, as well as be versatile enough to
serve both military and commercial needs.
In 2007, the first prize money was awarded
for the Centennial Challenge program: one prize for
This report explores these developments and
$200,000 was awarded for space technology (astro-
other major events that defined U.S. commercial
naut gloves). Although participants fell short in
space transportation in 2007. It showcases current
other Centennial Challenges they attempted, several
and planned U.S. commercial or commercially-ori-
were determined to try again in 2008, and their
ented activities. It also addresses space competi-
efforts showed promising technological progress.
tions, reusable launch vehicles (RLVs), expendable
Expendable Launch Vehicle Industry flights on March 22 and April 19, 2007. Additionally, the
second Falcon 1 launch, designated Demo Flight 2,
In 2007, U.S. ELVs—with one notable excep-
took place on March 20, 2007. Although the vehicle
tion—maintained launch tempos comparable to the
failed to reach orbit because of an upper stage con-
year prior. The Atlas V, Delta II, Delta IV, Minotaur
trol anomaly causing the engine to shut down pre-
I, Pegasus XL, and other ELVs conducted numer-
maturely, SpaceX has taken several steps to resolve
ous launches, all successful. The Taurus vehicle did
the problem, and a third Falcon 1 flight is expected
not launch in 2007, but two Taurus launches are
in 2008.
scheduled for 2008. The Sea Launch Zenit-3SL
booster—a major commercial launch provider— Armadillo Aerospace received an experimen-
suffered a launch failure in January 2007 that tal permit for its MOD-1 vehicle in 2007. Under
derailed its use for the remainder of the year. this permit, on October 20, MOD-1 performed a
However, the Zenit-3SL is expected to return to low-altitude flight test at the Oklahoma Spaceport
flight and fully resume its commercial launch to demonstrate it was capable of performing the
tempo in 2008. flight profile needed to win Level One of the Lunar
Lander Challenge. MOD-1 then made four flights
In addition, UP Aerospace conducted the first
at the 2007 X PRIZE Cup in an effort to win the
successful commercial launch of its SpaceLoft XL
competition. The vehicle successfully flew the first
suborbital rocket. The launch was the first success-
leg of the Level One challenge on the afternoon of
ful mission launched from New Mexico’s Spaceport
October 27, but during the return suffered a “hard
America.
start” of its engine causing a shut down as the vehi-
cle hovered over the landing pad. Despite this
Several companies continued to develop new
minor setback, Armadillo plans to continue test
ELV concepts in 2007, including the Alliant
flights in 2008.
Techsystems (ATK) Launch Vehicle; Aquarius by
Space Systems Loral; Eaglet by E’Prime
Other companies pursued ongoing tests of
Aerospace; Falcon Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) by
their respective RLVs in 2007. Among the high-
Lockheed Martin; Nanosat Launch Vehicle by
lights, Masten Space Systems’ XA 0.1 began teth-
Garvey Spacecraft Corporation (GSC); Eagle SLV
ered flight tests, with larger prototype, the XA 0.2,
by Microcosm; QuickReach by AirLaunch LLC; Z-
currently under development; and Rocketplane
1 by Zig Aerospace, LLC; and the Zenit-3SLB
Global unveiled a new design for the Rocketplane
vehicle being developed by Sea Launch. Most of
XP suborbital vehicle.
these designs focus on the small payload market.
Reentry Vehicles and In-Space
Additionally in 2007, NASA further refined
Technologies
plans for the Ares I and Ares V vehicles, which will
leverage Space Shuttle and Apollo-era technologies The NASA Vision for Space Exploration,
toward future manned and unmanned missions. In along with the planned 2010 retirement of the
July, NASA awarded Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Space Shuttle, has prompted the need for new reen-
a $1.2-billion contract to develop the Ares I upper try vehicles and in-space technologies to support
stage engine, and in August 2007, the agency future manned and unmanned missions. To main-
selected Boeing to build the Ares I upper stage tain mission capability after the Shuttle is retired,
itself. Planning for the Ares V was ongoing, with NASA is developing the Orion Crew Exploration
detailed technical specifications for the vehicle yet Vehicle to carry people and pressurized cargo into
to be announced. space. At the end of missions, Orion will also serve
as the atmospheric reentry vehicle. It will reenter
Reusable Launch Vehicle Industry the atmosphere using a newly-developed thermal
protection system. Unmanned abort testing of this
Several RLV efforts enjoyed notable success-
reentry vehicle is slated to begin in 2008.
es in 2007. On the heels of the first FAA-permitted
flight of Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket in late
Among notable other initiatives in this tech-
2006, the company performed two follow-on test
nology sector, Bigelow Aerospace followed its suc-
Enabling Technologies
Department of Defense (DoD) needs
remained a primary driver of enabling technology
development in 2007. In July 2007, for example,
DARPA and the USAF jointly agreed to fund Phase
2C of AirLaunch LLC engine tests at a value of
$7.6 million. These Vapor Pressurization (VaPak)
upper stage engines for the AirLaunch QuickReach
Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) would facilitate deliv-
ery of a 450-kilogram (1,000-pound) payload to
low Earth orbit (LEO) for $5 million per launch
with a response time of less than 24 hours—an
application useful to operationally responsive space
and other defense needs.
Spaceports
In 2007, federal and non-federal spaceports
alike sought to expand their capabilities to entice an
emerging responsive and suborbital space tourism
market. These spaceports continued to carry out
launches at similar tempos as in recent years while
implementing infrastructure improvements as fund-
ing allowed and exploring whether and how to
position themselves within the commercial market-
place.
Regulatory Developments
2007 was also a year of ongoing regulatory
enhancements. The FAA continued to refine its reg-
ulations in three primary areas: private human
spaceflight, experimental launches, and amateur
rockets.
January 11: China demonstrates a major new mili- (ISS). Charles Simonyi, a software architect for-
tary space capability by successfully testing an anti- merly with Microsoft, spends 13 days in space in a
satellite weapon that destroys the aging Chinese trip organized by the space tourism company Space
weather satellite Fengyun 1C. The test creates con- Adventures, Ltd. before returning safely to the
siderable orbital debris and draws formal protests Earth on April 21.
from the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan,
South Korea, and other nations. April 23: India conducts its first commercial
launch as a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)
January 30: A Sea Launch Zenit-3SL rocket lifts off from Satish Dhawan Space Centre carrying
explodes upon liftoff, destroying the vehicle and its AGILE, an Italian astrophysics satellite. The launch
payload, the NSS 8 communications satellite, as is marketed by Antrix, the commercial arm of the
well as damaging the Odyssey Launch Platform. Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
Russian and Ukrainian authorities identify a foreign
object in an engine turbopump as the likely cause April 28: UP Aerospace conducts the first success-
of the failure. ful commercial launch of its Spaceloft XL subor-
bital rocket, lofting a Celestis capsule carrying the
February 21: NASA Ames Research Center and cremains of actor James Doohan (the character
space tourism company Virgin Galactic sign a “Scotty” from Star Trek), astronaut Gordon Cooper,
memorandum of understanding to cooperate on and others to an altitude of 115 kilometers (72
developing various technologies including space- miles) before coming down at White Sands Missile
suits, thermal protection systems, hybrid propulsion Range. It is the first successful mission launched
systems, and hypersonic vehicles. from Spaceport America.
March 20: Space Exploration Technologies May 22: The European Commission and the
(SpaceX) conducts the second launch of its Falcon European Space Agency (ESA) formally adopt the
1 rocket from Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. first official European Space Policy, a landmark
The vehicle lifts off successfully and climbs to an policy document resulting from nearly three years
altitude of approximately 300 kilometers (183 of European Space Council meetings involving
miles). However, at five minutes into the flight the consultation with 29 member and observer states. It
rocket’s second stage experiences a roll control expresses that space will play an increasing role in
anomaly and fails to achieve orbit. SpaceX con- the security and prosperity of Europe, that
cludes that the anomaly caused propellants to cen- European space assets must be protected from dis-
trifuge away from tank outlets, leading the engine ruption, and that Europe must maximize its return
to shut down prematurely. Although the rocket does on investment in space.
not reach orbit, SpaceX considers the flight a suc-
cess that demonstrated the viability of about 90 per- June 7: A Boeing Delta II launches the COSMO-
cent of the technologies used in the vehicle. SkyMed 1 remote sensing satellite from
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB).
April 3: Voters in New Mexico’s Doña Ana County
approve a sales tax increase designed to raise an July 20: Northrop Grumman Corporation, which
estimated $49 million toward funding Spaceport had previously held a 40 percent stake in Scaled
America, the future headquarters of Sir Richard Composites, LLC, announces its acquisition of the
Branson’s Virgin Galactic suborbital space tourism Mojave, California-based developer of the
company. SpaceShipOne vehicle that captured the Ansari X
Prize in 2004. Both companies state the acquisition
April 7: The Soyuz ISS 14S mission lifts off from will have no effect on Scaled Composites’ arrange-
Baikonur in Kazakhstan carrying the fifth orbital ment to provide a fleet of SpaceShipTwo vehicles
space tourist to the International Space Station to Virgin Galactic.
July 26: A nitrous oxide flash explosion at Mojave October 27-28: The 2007 X PRIZE Cup is held at
Air and Space Port, California, kills three Scaled Holloman Air Force Base’s Air and Space Expo in
Composites employees and injures three others. The New Mexico. An estimated 85,000 people over two
accident prompts Mojave Air and Space Port and days attend this second X PRIZE Cup, an air and
Scaled Composites officials to review preventive space expo conceived to highlight the emerging
safety procedures at the launch facility. personal spaceflight industry and stage technology
competitions such as the Northrop Grumman Lunar
September 6: A Proton rocket carrying the Lander Challenge.
Japanese communications satellite JCSAT 11 does
not reach orbit when the booster’s second stage November 6: Striking machinists involved with
fails to separate, causing it to crash in Kazakh terri- Space Shuttle operations at the Kennedy Space
tory downrange from the Baikonur launch site. An Center (KSC) reach an agreement with their
investigation by a Russian State Commission con- employer, United Space Alliance, on a new three-
cludes the failure was caused by a defective cable year contract providing workers with a substantial
that prevented the firing of the explosive bolts used portion of the wage increases they had sought and
in stage separation. The Proton vehicle returns to more limited concessions on benefits.
flight on October 26.
November 22: Russia announces plans for a new
September 13: The X PRIZE Foundation and the spaceport, the Vostochny (“Eastern”) cosmodrome,
Internet search engine company Google unveil the in the Amur region located in the Far East of the
$30-million Google Lunar X PRIZE competition. country. The precise location of the spaceport will
Under the terms of the competition, Google will be decided by 2010, with unmanned launches slated
award $20 million to the first company to develop a to begin from there by 2015, followed by manned
lunar rover that can soft-land on the Moon, rove at missions in 2018.
least 500 meters, and return a series of high-resolu-
tion images and videos. A $5-million prize will be November 24: European Union (EU) member
awarded to the second company to achieve the feat. nations reach an agreement on funding the Galileo
The remaining $5 million will fund bonus prizes, satellite navigation system after deciding to divide
such as discovering lunar water ice. The X PRIZE development of the constellation into six contracts
Foundation will administer the competition, whose and prohibit any one company from winning more
cash prize expires at the end of 2014. than two of them. The proposal will fund Galileo at
€2.4 billion (US$3.5 billion) using unspent agricul-
September 18: A Boeing Delta II launches the tural subsidies.
WorldView 1 remote sensing satellite from VAFB.
December 6: Odyssey Moon, a newly established
October 18: NASA terminates an existing agree- international lunar enterprise based in the Isle of
ment with Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) to help fund Man, announces it will seek the $30-million Google
development of a reusable launch vehicle after the Lunar X PRIZE, making the company the first team
30-day notice of termination the agency had given to complete registration for entry into the competi-
RpK in September expires. The company was one tion.
of two to win Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS) demonstration awards. RpK had December 8: A Boeing Delta II launches the
taken over the development of the K-1 vehicle orig- Cosmo-Skymed 2 remote sensing satellite from
inally proposed by Kistler Aerospace, but had VAFB.
missed several milestones in its agreement due to
the company's difficulty raising an estimated $500
million from the private sector. NASA announces
plans to hold a competition to award the remaining
money in the RpK award, $174.7 million, with
results to be announced in 2008.
The U.S. space community has a number of prize plex lunar exploration tasks, bringing the total
competitions that promote the development of com- Google Lunar X PRIZE purse to $30 million.1
mercial spaceflight technology. Various technolo-
gies and services are being competed in order to The contest will require teams to use a private
increase the capability of private spacefaring enti- launch, thereby pushing forward commercial launch
ties to access and operate within suborbital space, vehicle capability and potentially increasing launch
orbital space, and beyond. These competitions aim demand.
to create commercial space launch services (and
other space capabilities) with lower costs, better X PRIZE Cup
quality, and more efficient processes than the
The X PRIZE Cup is an annual event to
options currently available. The four sets of current-
advance new concepts and technologies that enable
ly active prize competitions are the Google Lunar X
commercial human spaceflight by providing awards
PRIZE, the X PRIZE Cup, America’s Space Prize,
and cash prizes. A secondary priority for the com-
and NASA’s various Centennial Challenges.
petition is to promote education and awareness in
the general population about advancements in
Google Lunar X PRIZE spaceflight technology. The public has the opportu-
In September 2007, the X PRIZE Foundation nity to view competitions between providers of
announced a new international space prize competi- commercial space technology and interact with
tion to encourage the private exploration of the aerospace industry pioneers who are working to
Moon. The Google Lunar X PRIZE calls for pri- reduce the cost and increase the safety and viability
vately funded teams to land a robot on the surface of commercial human space travel. Thus far, two
of the Moon, explore the surface by traveling at Cups have been held, plus the “Countdown to the X
least 500 meters, and return two packages of high- PRIZE Cup” in 2005. At both Cups, $2 million in
resolution video and imagery (called “Mooncasts”) prizes have been offered as part of the Northrop
back to the Earth. The first place winner will claim Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, a prize compe-
$20 million if the prize is won by the end of 2012, tition funded by NASA’s Centennial Challenges
or $15 million if the prize is won in 2013 or 2014. program. The eventual goal of the event is to have
A second place prize valued at $5 million is avail- teams compete in several categories of human
able for the second team to complete the contest spaceflight to win the overall X PRIZE Cup, as
criteria before the end of 2014; it may also be well as hold other individual competitions and
awarded in place of the first place prize if the first Rocket Racing League events. Conceptual Cup cat-
team partially completes the mission. Additional egories include: fastest turnaround time between a
bonus prizes worth a total of $5 million will be vehicle’s first launch and second landing, maximum
available for successfully completing certain com- number of passengers per launch, total number of
passengers during the competition, maximum alti-
tude, and fastest flight time. Current vehicle devel-
opment timelines will not allow for these types of
competitions for several years, though other signifi-
cant activities have taken place at the annual event.
registered participants successfully completed the profit organizations to sponsor, promote, and oper-
challenge criteria, but promising technologies were ate the competitions. There are seven Centennial
flown and static displays provided interactive edu- Challenges currently active, six of which support
cation for the general public.3 space technology. All of these are open for competi-
tion between U.S. non-governmental entities. Not
America’s Space Prize all of the competitions deal directly with commer-
cial space transportation technologies, but they do
Bigelow Aerospace has proposed a commer-
spur technology development for use in future
cial spaceflight competition, America’s Space Prize,
space missions, and can drive the demand for
to develop affordable spacecraft that could service
spaceflight. The first award of Centennial
their future space complexes. This prize challenges
Challenges prize money was made in 2007 for
entities to design a spacecraft without government
space technology. Other Centennial Challenge
funding that is capable of carrying passengers into
attempts, while not winning prize money, have
orbit with the eventual goal of transporting humans
shown promising technological progress.5
to Bigelow Aerospace’s expandable space habitats.
According to the rules, competitors will be required
The NASA prize competition that correlates
to build a spacecraft capable of carrying a five-per-
most directly with rocket-powered commercial
son crew to an altitude of 400 kilometers (240
space transportation is the Northrop Grumman
miles) and completing two orbits of the Earth at
Lunar Lander Challenge (NG-LLC). This competi-
that altitude. They must then repeat that accom-
tion is administered and executed by the X PRIZE
plishment within 60 days. Both flights must carry
Foundation, who received funding to cover admin-
passengers, and the second flight must carry a crew
istrative costs from Northrop Grumman in
of at least five. The spacecraft will have to dock
exchange for naming rights of the competition. The
with a Bigelow Aerospace space complex or, at a
rules of the NG-LLC call for a rocket-propelled
minimum, demonstrate relevant docking capability.
vehicle with an assigned payload mass to demon-
In addition, no more than 20 percent of the space-
strate its ability to takeoff vertically, fly for a mini-
craft can consist of expendable hardware. With the
mum amount of time during which it must reach a
successful launch and ongoing operation of the
certain altitude, travel
Genesis I and Genesis II pathfinder spacecraft, as
horizontally to a desig-
well as the company’s current plans for future hab-
nated landing area, land
itable complexes, Bigelow Aerospace is aggressive-
vertically at the landing
ly continuing to build demand for the transportation
area, and complete a
systems outlined in the America’s Space Prize com-
similar return trip within
petition. The competition deadline is January 10,
a set timeframe. The
2010, with a cash prize of $50 million, funded fully
flight characteristics are
by Bigelow Aerospace.4
tested at two different
difficulty levels that
Centennial Challenges
have separate prizes
NASA’s Innovative Partnerships Program based on increasingly
(IPP) uses Centennial Challenges to advance the difficult requirements.
development of space technologies through prize During the 2007 NG-
Flight of Armadillo
competitions, bringing important government Aerospace’s MOD-1 LLC held at the X
encouragement to commercial efforts. Centennial vehicle for the 2007 PRIZE Cup, Armadillo
Challenges was previously located within the Northrop Grumman Aerospace was the only
Lunar Lander Challenge
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, but was participant to fly a lunar
moved to IPP at the beginning of fiscal year 2007. lander concept, though nine teams had originally
This program creates specialized competitions to registered to compete.6 Armadillo made four flight
stimulate progress on specific technologies related attempts to win the first-level competition using its
to exploring space and other NASA missions. MOD-1 vehicle. The team was unable to win the
NASA uses funding outlets beyond the standard prize money and did not make an attempt at the
procurement process and collaborates with non- higher-level difficulty requirements, but the team,
as in 2006, showed its technological progress 2008 by the omnibus budget bill, the extant compe-
through flight attempts. The total prize money, titions are fully-funded and the prize purses are
$500,000 for level one and $1,500,000 for level becoming significantly larger. The funding exists
two, will transfer to 2008 when the challenge will because NASA has not experienced large associated
be held again. program costs to present, which is a result of
administrative and operational cost-shifting through
The other space-focused Centennial collaborations with non-profit organizations, and
Challenges, not including the Personal Air Vehicle because unearned prize money has rolled over from
Challenge administered and executed by the one year to the next. Provided additional appropria-
Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency Foundation, tions are agreed upon, NASA plans to expand the
promote future space mission technologies that number of Centennial Challenges, with more com-
could increase the likelihood for spaceflight and petitions dealing with space exploration, science,
possibly commercial space transportation. The and transportation.
Astronaut Glove Challenge (run by Volanz
Aerospace/Spaceflight America) was won in 2007
by Peter Homer for his glove’s best rating in
strength, flexibility, and comfort categories.7 The
contest paid $200,000 and will continue in 2008
with a total of $400,000 in prize money. The first
two Centennial Challenges ever held, and which
will continue in 2008, are the Tether and Beam
Power Challenges (conducted by the Spaceward
Foundation) encouraging the development of high
strength-to-weight materials and wireless power
distribution technologies. The 2007 competitions
were held at the Space Elevator Games on October
19-21 near Salt Lake City, Utah.8 There has yet to
be a winner of these two challenges, so the prize
money will continue to accumulate, increasing in
2008 to $900,000 for each competition. The
Regolith Excavation Challenge, conducted in 2007
with four teams but no winner, and Moon Regolith
Oxygen Extraction Challenge (both run by the
California Space Education and Workforce
Institute) are also active. These Challenges have
prizes amounting to $750,000 and $1 million,
respectively, for future lunar exploration excavation
and oxygen extraction technologies.9 Together, all
these competitions are meeting NASA’s goals of
promoting and publicizing private space technology
development through the investment of non-govern-
mental resources, ingenuity, and innovation.
This survey of U.S. ELVs is divided into four sec- can place payloads between 4,950 and 7,640 kilo-
tions. The first reviews the ELVs currently avail- grams (10,910 and 16,843 pounds) into geosyn-
able to serve a wide range of commercial and gov- chronous transfer orbit (GTO). The Atlas 500 series
ernment payloads. The second reviews a number of can place payloads between 3,970 and 8,670 kilo-
proposed commercial ELVs under study or devel- grams (8,750 and 19,120 pounds) into GTO. The
opment. Many of these are designed to launch Atlas V launches out of Cape Canaveral Air Force
small satellites at lower costs and quicker than Station (CCAFS) in Florida and Vandenberg Air
existing vehicles. The third discusses the new Force Base (VAFB) in California.
launch vehicles being developed exclusively to sup-
port the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration. The Since its introduction in 2002 the Atlas V has
final section reviews suborbital sounding rockets performed 12 launches. In 2007 four Atlas V
manufactured and operated by U.S. companies. launches took place, all non-commercial. On a June
15 launch, the vehicle placed the classified NRO L-
Current Expendable Launch Vehicle 30 payload into a lower-than-planned orbit. The
Systems divergence from the planned orbit was traced to a
leaky fuel valve in the Centaur upper stage that
Table 1, on the next page, lists the ELV sys-
caused the Centaur engine to shut down early. That
tems available in the United States today for com-
valve has been replaced with a proven older
mercial, government, or both, missions. The
model.12 Up to seven Atlas V launches, including
Minotaur is restricted to government payloads, and
one commercial mission, are planned for 2008.
Boeing is currently marketing the Delta IV only to
government customers. Atlas V, Delta II, Pegasus, Delta II – United Launch Alliance
and Taurus vehicles are available for commercial
and U.S. government launches; the Zenit-3SL is not The Delta II launch vehicle, in service since
available for U.S. government missions. 1989, traces its heritage to the Thor missile pro-
gram of the 1950s. Since
Atlas V – United Launch Alliance December 2006 the Delta II
has been produced by ULA,
The Atlas V is one of two launch vehicles
and is marketed commercial-
developed as part of the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved
ly by Boeing Launch
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program in the
Services (BLS). The Delta II
late 1990s. The Atlas V was developed by the
has the capability to launch
Lockheed Martin Corporation; since December
payloads of 900 to 2,170
2006 it has been produced by United Launch
kilograms (1,980 to 4,790
Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between The
pounds) to GTO, and 2,700
Boeing Company and
to 6,100 kilograms (5,960 to
Lockheed Martin. The Atlas
13,440 pounds) to low Earth
V is made available for com-
orbit (LEO), and can launch
mercial launches by
from either CCAFS or
Lockheed Martin Delta II
VAFB.
Commercial Launch
Services. There were eight Delta II launches in 2006,
including commercial launches of the Cosmo-
The Atlas V is available
Skymed 1, WorldView-1, and Cosmo-Skymed 2
in the 400 and 500 series and
satellites in June, September, and December,
accommodates 4-meter
respectively, from VAFB. As many as nine Delta II
(13.1-foot) and 5.4-meter
launches, including three commercial missions, are
(17.6-foot) fairings and up to
planned for 2008.
five strap-on solid rocket
Atlas V motors. The Atlas 400 series
Veh ic le Minotaur Pegasus XL Taurus XL Delta II Delta IV Atlas V Delta IV Heavy Zenit-3SL
Orbital Orbital Orbital
Co m p a n y ULA ULA ULA ULA Sea Launch
Sciences Sciences Sciences
Fir s t L a u n c h 2000 1990 1994 1990 2002 2002 2004 1999
S ta g es 4 3 4 3 2 2 2 3
9,150 kg 12,500 kg
(20,170 lb) (27,560 lb)
P a ylo a d
640 kg 440 kg 1,590 kg 6,100 kg (Delta IV M) (Atlas V 402) 22,560 kg
P e r fo r m a n c e N/A
(1,410 lb) (970 lb) (3,505 lb) (13,440 lb) 13,360 kg 20,520 kg (49,740 lb)
( L E O)
(29,440 lb) (45,240 lb)
(Delta IV M+ (5,4)) (Atlas V 552)
7,510 kg 7,095 kg
(16,550 lb) (15,640 lb)
P a ylo a d 340 kg 190 kg 860 kg
3,600 kg (Delta IV M) (Atlas V 402) 22,560 kg
P e r fo r m a n c e (750 lb) (420 lb) (2,000 lb) N/A
(7,930 lb) 11,300 kg 14,095 kg (49,740 lb)
( L EO po la r ) (SSO) (SSO) (SSO)
(24,920 lb) (31,075 lb)
(Delta IV M+ (5,4)) (Atlas V 552)
4,300 kg 4,950 kg
(9,480 lb) (10,910 lb)
P a ylo a d
430 kg 2,170 kg (Delta IV M) (Atlas V 401) 12,980 kg 6,100 kg
P e r fo r m a n c e N/A N/A
(950 lb) (4,790 lb) 7,020 kg 8,670 kg (28,620 lb) (13,500 lb)
( G TO)
(15,470 lb) (19,120 lb)
(Delta IV M+ (5,4)) (Atlas V 551)
VAFB,
VAFB, Pacific
L a u n c h S ites Wallops, VAFB CCAFS, VAFB CCAFS, VAFB CCAFS, VAFB CCAFS, VAFB
Wallops Ocean
CCAFS
with the U.S. Air Force to use Peacekeeper technol- Nanosat Launch Vehicle –
ogy for commercial launch vehicles. In August Garvey Spacecraft Corporation
2007 E’Prime Aerospace announced that it had
Vehicle: Nanosat Launch Vehicle
selected MARS as its primary launch site and will
develop infrastructure there to support its vehicles. Developer: Garvey Spacecraft Corporation
The company also started the process of obtaining a First Launch: TBD
launch license from FAA, and in November 2007 Number of Stages: 2
was notified that the application had cleared an Payload Performance: 10 kg (22 lb) to LEO (polar orbit)
interagency policy review, removing any govern- Launch Site: TBD
ment obstacles to its use of its Peacekeeper-derived
Markets Served: Nanosatellite launch
motors.17
Garvey Spacecraft Corporation (GSC), based
FALCON SLV –
Lockheed Martin Michoud Operations in Long Beach, California, is a small research and
development (R&D) company, focusing on the
Vehicle: FALCON SLV development of advanced space technologies and
Developer: Lockheed Martin Michoud Operations launch vehicle systems. As part of the California
First Launch: TBD
Launch Vehicle Initiative (CALVEIN), GSC and
California State University, Long Beach (CSULB)
Number of Stages: 2
jointly conduct preliminary R&D tasks to establish
Payload Performance: 840 kg (1,855 lb) to LEO the foundation for development of a two-stage, liq-
Launch Site: TBD uid propellant, Nanosat Launch Vehicle (NLV).
Markets Served: Small satellite launch, responsive Capable of delivering 10 kilograms (22 pounds) to
space operations a 250-kilometer (155-mile) polar orbit, the NLV
will provide low-cost, dedicated launch services to
Lockheed Martin Michoud Operations of New universities and other research organizations that
Orleans, Louisiana, was awarded one of four traditionally depend on secondary payload opportu-
DARPA Force Application and Launch from nities to access space. Their current work builds
CONUS (FALCON) contracts in September 2004. upon flights that the team
This $11.7 million contract tasks Lockheed Martin conducted using several of
to develop concepts for a low-cost launch vehicle. its LOX/ethanol Prospector
Lockheed Martin’s FALCON SLV approach uses research vehicles. The com-
all-hybrid propulsion and a mobile launch system pany’s most visible accom-
that can launch from an unimproved site with limit- plishments include the first-
ed infrastructure on 24 hours notice, placing up to ever flight of a composite
840 kilograms (1,855 LOX tank, conducted in part-
pounds) into LEO. In nership with Microcosm,
2005, Lockheed conduct- Incorporated; the first-ever
ed two test firings of the powered flights of a liquid-
hybrid rocket motor that propellant aerospike engine;
will be used on the upper and the launch and 100 per-
stage of the SLV. Though cent recovery of several pro-
Lockheed did not win a Prospector 8A totype reusable test vehicles.
Phase 2B Falcon contract
from DARPA in late On September 15, 2007, the GSC/CSULB
FALCON SLV
2005, the company con- team launched the Prospector 8A (P-8A) rocket
tinues work on the FALCON SLV, focusing on the from the Mojave Desert in California. The rocket
development and testing of the second stage of the featured the first flight of a new 20,000-newton
vehicle.18 (4,500-pounds-force) engine designed for future
prototypes of the NLV. The loss of the P-8A’s tail
fins four seconds into the flight caused the vehicle
to tumble out of control.19 GSC is incorporating
design lessons from that flight into its next vehicle, vehicle would loft up to 1,924 kilograms (4,240
the Prospector 9 (P-9), currently under development pounds) to LEO and up to 757 kilograms (1,670
under a Phase 2 Small Business Innovation pounds) to GTO. The Exodus Medium-Lift vehicle
Research from the USAF. GSC and its research would deploy up to 8,938 kilograms (19,700
partner, CSULB, plan five launches in the next year pounds) to LEO and up to 3,518 kilograms (7,760
of the P-9 and two other vehicles, Prospectors 10 pounds) to GTO. Specifications for the heavy-lift
and 12.20 Space Freighter are not yet available.
Orbital is also developing a derivative of the launch vehicle program, including numerous tests
Minotaur IV, called the Minotaur V, for payloads of its liquid oxygen/propane vapor pressurization
launched to orbits beyond LEO. The Minotaur V (VaPak) system. AirLaunch achieved the longest-
features the same three Peacekeeper-based lower ever burn of a VaPak engine system with a 191-sec-
stages, but uses a Star 48 fourth stage and Star 37 ond engine firing on a test stand at Mojave Air and
fifth stage, allowing it to put 678 kilograms (1,495 Space Port, California, in April 2007. In June 2007
pounds) into GTO and 440 kilograms (970 pounds) AirLaunch received a $7.6-million contract for
on a translunar injection trajectory. The Minotaur V Phase 2C of the Falcon program. The contract cov-
shares many of the same subsystems as the ers continued development and testing of the VaPak
Minotaur IV, requiring only an additional $10 mil- system.23 Phase 2 is anticipated to conclude with the
lion in non-recurring engineering expenses to com- test launch of a QuickReach rocket in approximate-
plete its development.22 ly 2010.24
In July 2006, AirLaunch LLC conducted the Z-1 – Zig Aerospace, LLC
safe release of a full-scale dummy rocket from an
Zig Aerospace of King George, Virginia, is
Air Force C-17 cargo airplane. The demonstration
developing the Z-1 small launch vehicle. Intended
was a follow-on to two prior drop tests. AirLaunch
to launch nanosatellites and similar small payloads,
LLC did not perform further drop tests in 2007.
Z-1 has a maximum payload capacity of five kilo-
grams (11 pounds) to LEO. The two-stage vehicle,
During 2007 AirLaunch completed work on
powered by hybrid propellants, is intended to cost
Phase 2B of the DARPA/USAF Falcon small
less than $200,000 per launch. Zig Aerospace is in
the midst of a 3-year development program. Once NASA Exploration Launch Vehicles
the Z-1 vehicle enters operations, the company On September 19, 2005, NASA announced its
expects to be able to conduct launches as frequently planned mission architecture for crewed lunar mis-
as once a month.26 sions. The plan calls for the development of two
new launch vehicles, the Crew Launch Vehicle
Zenit-3SLB – (since renamed the Ares I) and the Cargo Launch
Sea Launch Company, LLC, and Space Vehicle (renamed the Ares V). Both vehicles are
International Services designed to leverage Shuttle and even Apollo-era
Vehicle: Zenit-3SLB technologies to launch crewed and uncrewed space-
craft required to carry out the Vision for Space
Developer: Space International Services
Exploration.
First Launch: 2008
Number of Stages: 3 Ares I
Payload Performance: 3,600 kg (7,940 lb) to GTO Vehicle: Ares I
Launch Site: Baikonur Developer: NASA
Markets Served: Commercial GEO satellite launch First Launch: 2009 (suborbital); 2014 (orbital)
Number of Stages: 2
The Sea Launch Board of Directors voted on
Payload Performance: 22,700 kg (50,000 lb) to LEO
September 30, 2003, to offer launch services from
the Baikonur Space Center in Kazakhstan, in addi- Launch Site: KSC
tion to its sea-based launches at the Equator. The Markets Served: Crew launches for exploration and ISS
missions
new offering, Land Launch, is based on the collab-
oration of Sea Launch Company and Space The Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle is a two-
International Services, of Russia, to meet the launch stage vehicle designed principally to launch
needs of commercial customers with medium NASA’s Orion CEV into LEO and may also be
weight satellites. The Land Launch system uses a used to launch cargo spacecraft to the ISS. The first
version of the Sea Launch Zenit-3SL rocket, the stage of the Ares I is a five-segment reusable solid
Zenit-3SLB, to lift commercial satellites in the rocket motor (RSRM) derived from the four-seg-
2,000 to 3,600-kilogram (4,410 to 7,940-pound) ment boosters used in the Space Shuttle program.
range to GTO and heavier The second stage is a
payloads to inclined or lower new design powered by
orbits. The three stages on a single J-2X engine,
the Zenit-3SLB are the same based on the J-2S engine
as those on the Sea Launch developed at the end of
Zenit-3SL; the fairing is the the Apollo program in
only significant difference the early 1970s; it uses
between the two vehicles. A LOX and liquid hydro-
two-stage configuration of gen propellants. The
the same rocket, the Zenit- Orion spacecraft, along
2SLB, is also available for with an escape rocket,
lifting heavy payloads, or will be mounted on top
Zenit-3SLB groups of payloads, to LEO. of the second stage. Ares I
actual production of the rocket performed by The first successful SpaceLoft XL launch
Nammo AS. The HTR uses liquid oxygen and rub- took place on April 28, 2007, from Spaceport
berized HTPB as fuel, has a 31,000-newton (7,000- America in New Mexico.33 The rocket reached a
pound-force) thrust, and a burn time of 30 to 35 peak altitude of 117.5 kilometers (72.7 miles), land-
seconds. Its peak altitude is designed to be between ing in a mountainous region of the approved land-
55 and 75 kilometers (34 and 57 miles). Lockheed ing zone at White Sands Missile Range, New
Martin-Michoud obtained an International Traffic in Mexico. The rocket carried over 50 student experi-
Arms Regulations (ITAR) Manufacturing License ments as well as commercial payloads from several
Agreement from the U.S. Government in order to companies.34
gain approval for the 17-month design and handoff
project. On May 3, 2007, the HTR flew successful-
ly from the Andøya Rocket Range in Norway.
Nammo AS considered the HTR a test vehicle only,
giving the company expertise in the development
and operation of hybrid propulsion systems.32
Spaceloft XL
This section describes active and emerging RLV MOD – Armadillo Aerospace
programs in the United States. Emphasis is placed
Vehicle: MOD
on vehicles developed by private companies with-
out the assistance of the government. Many of these Developer: Armadillo Aerospace
companies are developing space hardware for the First Launch: 2007
first time. Government RLV programs are also Number of Stages: 1
included to provide context, particularly since the Payload Performance: 25 kg (55 lb) to 50 m (165 ft)
Space Shuttle is considered a first-generation RLV. Launch Site: Oklahoma Spaceport, Holloman Air Force
Experiences gained by operating the Space Shuttle Base
for more than 20 years have helped solve, as well Targeted Market: Lunar Lander Challenge competition,
as highlight, crucial problems related to the design future suborbital and orbital launch applications
of efficient RLV systems. The first subsection
addresses commercial RLV projects underway or in
Armadillo Aerospace, a former competitor for
development. The second subsection features gov-
the Ansari X Prize, is developing a family of vehi-
ernment RLV efforts.
cles designed for suborbital and, eventually, orbital
flight opportunities. In 2007, Armadillo developed
Commercial RLV Development Efforts
the MOD-1 vehicle, a variant of the Quad vehicle
Tiger & Cardinal – Acuity Technologies Armadillo built in 2006 to compete for the Northrop
Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. The MOD-1
Vehicle: Tiger & Cardinal
consists of a single pair of propellant tanks (the
Developer: Acuity Technologies Quad design featured two pairs of tanks) above a
First Launch: TBD LOX/ethanol engine, with payload and electronic
Number of Stages: 1 boxes on top of the tanks. The vertical-takeoff, ver-
Payload Performance: 25 kg (55 lb) to 50 m (165 ft) tical-landing vehicle is supported by four large
Launch Site: TBD
landing legs.
Targeted Market: Lunar Lander Challenge competition
Armadillo received an experimental permit
for MOD-1 in 2007 and performed flights of the
vehicle under that permit during the year. On
Acuity Technologies of Menlo Park,
October 20, MOD-1 performed a low-level flight
California, has been developing the Tiger and
test at the Oklahoma Spaceport to demonstrate it
Cardinal vehicles to compete in the two levels of
was capable of performing the flight profile needed
the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge
to win Level One of the Lunar Lander Challenge.
competition. Both vehicles are vertical takeoff and
MOD-1 then made four flights at Holloman Air
vertical landing designs powered by isopropyl alco-
Force Base, New Mexico, during the 2007 X
hol and 59-percent con-
PRIZE Cup in an effort to win the competition. The
centration hydrogen per-
vehicle successfully flew the first leg of the Level
oxide. The vehicles are
One challenge on the afternoon of October 27, but
designed to maneuver
during the return leg suffered a “hard start” of its
autonomously and can
engine; the engine shut down with about seven sec-
also be controlled from
onds remaining in the flight as it hovered over the
the ground via a stan-
landing pad. On the morning of October 28,
dard remote control air-
Armadillo made another attempt to win the prize
craft radio link. Neither
with the MOD-1, flying the initial leg of the flight
vehicle was ready to
profile successfully. On the return trip, however, the
enter the 2007 competi-
engine suffered another hard start and made a pow-
tion but may participate
ered abort several seconds after ignition. A final
in future competitions.35 Tiger and Cardinal
attempt to win the prize on the afternoon of
October 28 failed when the engine suffered another and operate vehicles to serve the suborbital space
hard start, blowing off the engine chamber and tourism market. BSC originally planned to operate
starting a fire before the vehicle could lift off.36 a suborbital version of the Dream Chaser spacecraft
proposed by SpaceDev. However, in May 2007,
BSC unveiled a new vehicle concept, the BSC
Spaceship. The vehicle is an amalgam of several
previous NASA and
USAF aircraft and rock-
etplanes, including the
X-2, X-15, and T-38. The
BSC Spaceship will take
off vertically using
hybrid motors; after
BSC Spaceship
reaching a peak altitude
of at least 105 kilometers (65 miles), the vehicle
will perform a low-g “carefree” reentry—using an
approach called variable ballistic coefficient slow-
ing—and land on a runway. BSC believes the BSC
Spaceship will be faster and less expensive to con-
struct than previous designs, allowing it to enter
commercial service as early as 2009.38
MOD-1 on the pad at the 2007 X PRIZE Cup New Shepard – Blue Origin
Vehicle: New Shepard
After diagnosing and resolving these engine
Developer: Blue Origin
problems, Armadillo plans to continue development
of the MOD-1, using it as the basis for a series of First Launch: no later than 2010
increasingly-powerful modular vehicles. Future Number of Stages: 1-2
plans call for testing vehicles that use two or more Payload Performance: 3 people to 100 km (62 mi)
MOD-1 vehicles in combination. A “six-pack” vari- Launch Site: Culberson County, Texas
ant using six modules would be capable of carrying Targeted Market: Suborbital space tourism
a payload on a suborbital trajectory to 100 kilome-
ters (62 miles) altitude and could begin flight tests
Blue Origin is developing the New Shepard
in 2008. Even larger vehicles, using dozens of iden-
Reusable Launch System, a suborbital, vertical-
tical modules, could be used to launch small pay-
takeoff, vertical-landing RLV for commercial pas-
loads into orbit.37
senger spaceflights. The vehicle will consist of a
crew capsule, capable of carrying three or more
BSC Spaceship – Benson Space Company
people, mounted on top of a propulsion module.
Vehicle: BSC Spaceship
Developer: Benson Space Company
First Launch: 2009
Number of Stages: 1
Payload Performance: 6 people to at least 105 km
(65 mi)
Launch Site: TBD
Targeted Market: Suborbital space tourism
Engines using high-test peroxide (HTP) and does not require land-based launch infrastructure.
kerosene will power the vehicle. The flights would Taking advantage of design elements derived from
take place from a private facility operated by Blue submarine-launched ballistic missiles, this vehicle
Origin in Culberson County, Texas. will float in seawater and launch directly from the
ocean. Initial test launches of the vehicle are
As part of the New Shepard development planned for the second quarter of 2008.39
process, Blue Origin plans to build several proto-
type vehicles, which will be tested and flown from Neptune – Interorbital Systems
their Texas facility. The first such vehicle, named
Vehicle: Neptune
Goddard, is powered by an HTP monopropellant
engine and is intended to perform flights to alti- Developer: Interorbital Systems
tudes of about 600 meters (2,000 feet) and lasting First Launch: TBD
no longer than 1 minute. In September 2006, the Number of Stages: 1.5
FAA granted Blue Origin an experimental permit to Payload Performance: 3,175 kg (7,000 lb) to LEO
perform those flight tests. The first permitted flight Launch Site: Pacific Ocean west of Long Beach,
took place on November 13, 2006, followed by California
flights on March 22 and April 19, 2007. Targeted Market: Orbital space tourism
Sea Star
70-second burn. The Rocketplane XP will fly to an orbits, the K-1 is now being developed to serve the
altitude of at least 100 kilometers (62 miles) before ISS cargo and crew resupply market as well as
reentering and landing, either under jet power or satellite launch and other applications.
unpowered, at the same site as takeoff.
The first stage of the K-1, called the Launch
Assist Platform (LAP), is powered by three
LOX/kerosene GenCorp Aerojet AJ26-58/-59
engines, capable of generating 4.54 million newtons
(1.02 million pounds-force) of thrust. After launch,
the LAP separates from the second stage and
restarts its center engine to put the stage on a return
trajectory to a landing area near the launch site,
using parachutes and air bags. The second stage,
called the Orbital Vehicle (OV), continues into
LEO, powered by a single Aerojet AJ26-60 engine
with a thrust of 1.76 million newtons (395,000
Rocketplane XP pounds-force). At the end of its mission, a LOX and
ethanol thruster performs a deorbit burn. The OV
In October 2007, Rocketplane Global lands near the launch site using a parachute and
unveiled a new design for the Rocketplane XP. The airbag combination similar to the LAP. Initial
previous design, based on a highly-modified Learjet flights of the K-1 are planned to take place from
fuselage, was replaced with a larger cabin capable Spaceport Woomera in South Australia, with later
of carrying one pilot and five passengers. The jet flights staged from a U.S. site to be determined.
engines were upgraded to the more powerful J-85
version. The V-tail of the previous design has been RpK was formed in
replaced with a T-tail, and the landing gear with a early 2006 with the merger
model based on the gear used for the F-5 aircraft. of Rocketplane Ltd. with
Rocketplane Global estimates that over 200,000 Kistler Aerospace
person-hours went into developing the new design. Corporation, which had been
The company anticipates beginning flight tests in developing the K-1 concept
2010, contingent on raising sufficient capital to since the 1990s but had sus-
fund vehicle development.46 pended work because of
financial problems. In August
K-1 – Rocketplane Kistler 2006, RpK was one of two
companies to receive a fund-
Vehicle: K-1
ed COTS award from NASA
Developer: Rocketplane Kistler to help develop the K-1 to K-1
First Launch: TBD service the ISS. The compa-
Number of Stages: 2 ny achieved several milestones outlined in the
Payload Performance: 5,700 kg (12,500 lb) to LEO Space Act agreement with NASA for the COTS
Launch Sites: Woomera, Australia; U.S. site TBD
program through early 2007, including a system
requirement review for the K-1.47 However, the
Targeted Market: ISS crew and cargo resupply, satellite
launch, orbital space tourism company failed to achieve a financial milestone of
the COTS agreement requiring it to raise several
hundred million dollars of private capital to fully
Rocketplane Kistler (RpK), a subsidiary of
fund the development of the K-1. In October 2007,
Rocketplane Inc. of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is
NASA announced it had terminated the COTS
developing the K-1 orbital RLV. The K-1, whose
agreement with RpK after awarding the company
design dates back to the mid-1990s, is a two-stage
only $32.1 million of the original $207 million.48
RLV capable of placing up to 5,700 kilograms
(12,500 pounds) into LEO. Originally developed
primarily to launch satellites into LEO and other
International Space Station Crew and development. Phase 2, a separate contracting oppor-
Cargo Transport tunity from Phase 1, will consist of a competitive
procurement of cargo services to the ISS with an
The decision to finish constructing the ISS by option for crew services. In addition to the COTS
the end of the decade and maintain its operation agreements, the companies plan to provide their
with a six-person crew reinforces the demand for vehicles for other commercial and government mar-
continual transport flights to and from the station. kets.70
Several government systems to fulfill this demand
are either operational or planned. The Shuttle will SpaceX Dragon
be the primary American system for bringing new
station components, crew, and cargo to the ISS until Initiated internally by SpaceX in 2005, the
Shuttle retirement, after which Orion will provide Dragon spacecraft will be used for the commercial
this service. Russia’s Soyuz crew and Progress transportation of cargo and crew to and from LEO.
cargo vehicles are current robust international sys- As part of NASA's COTS program, SpaceX will
tems for replenishing the station. Additional inter- conduct a series of three Falcon 9 launches to send
national capacity is planned, including the Japanese a cargo-carrying Dragon into LEO where it will
H-2 Transfer Vehicle and European Automated demonstrate the ability to maneuver, dock with the
Transfer Vehicle (ATV) that are both currently in ISS, and return to Earth using a water landing. The
the development stage, with the first ATV planned first test flight of Dragon is planned for the second
for launch in early 2008. half of 2008, with subsequent launches over the fol-
lowing years.
American commercial vehicles are planned to
supplement these government systems for crew and The 4-meter (13-foot) diameter Dragon con-
cargo transport to the ISS in the future. On August sists of two modules: the trunk and capsule. The
16, 2006, NASA announced the signing of two unpressurized trunk module carries solar arrays,
funded Space Act Agreements with American com- thermal radiators, and stowage area for unpressur-
panies to develop and demonstrate the ability to ized cargo. The capsule module consists of a nose
provide transportation services to the ISS, under the cone to protect the vessel and docking adaptor dur-
COTS demonstration program. One of these agree- ing ascent, a pressurized section housing the crew
ments, with Rocketplane Kistler (RpK), has since and/or pressurized cargo, and a service section sur-
been terminated for failure to meet required mile- rounding the base of the pressurized section and
stones related to the development of its K-1 vehicle
planned for orbital crew and cargo transport. The
remaining company, SpaceX, has met its necessary
deadlines and is building the Falcon 9 launcher and
Dragon spacecraft to prove the necessary transport
capabilities under Phase 1 of the agreement, which
calls for three vehicle flights before 2010.
Private funding for Dragon will be supple- X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle
mented with NASA COTS funding through a Space
Act Agreement, as the company achieves vehicle The U.S. Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office
milestones. The current plan for NASA funding is leading development of an unmanned reusable
includes $278 million, which could change as the space vehicle designated the X-37B Orbital Test
demonstration process continues. SpaceX Vehicle (OTV). This new capability will serve as a
announced that it also submitted a proposal for the platform for science and technology demonstration
new COTS competition in late 2007, with the inten- and testing. Experiments will be carried in a pay-
tion of receiving funding for Dragon crewed capa- load bay, which can open and expose its contents to
bility. the space environment, similar to the bay in the
Space Shuttle. This vehicle leverages previous work Bigelow Aerospace will next continue its
NASA, DARPA, AFRL, and Boeing completed for habitat development with the larger Sundancer
the X-37 program. As it was for the original X-37 spacecraft. The successful test and demonstration of
vehicle, Boeing is the prime contractor for the technologies on the two Genesis spacecraft and the
OTV. increasing cost of orbital launch has led Bigelow
Aerospace to decide to proceed directly with the
The OTV will launch vertically into orbit on Sundancer, the company’s first attempt at producing
an expendable rocket and have the ability to deorbit a habitat capable of supporting a human presence
on command and land horizontally for reuse. Initial on orbit. The planned launch date for Sundancer is
plans call for launching the first OTV from CCAFS in approximately 2010. The spacecraft is currently
on an Atlas V in 2008. The vehicle will then deorbit anticipated to weigh around 8,600 kilograms
and land on a runway at either VAFB or EAFB in (19,000 pounds) and offer roughly 180 cubic meters
California.73 The first flights will be used for vehi- (6,350 cubic feet) of usable volume. The technolo-
cle testing, after which operational technology gies to be demonstrated and deployed on Sundancer
experiment flights will be conducted. include environmental control and life support sys-
tems; guidance, navigation, and attitude control;
Commercial Orbital Habitat propulsion; power generation; and windows.
Development Subsequent to Sundancer, Bigelow Aerospace plans
to launch a node/bus combination that will mate
Bigelow Aerospace is developing next-gener-
with the Sundancer to form the core of the compa-
ation, expandable space habitat technology that is
ny’s first space complex. If this activity is success-
intended to support a future private-sector-driven
ful, Bigelow Aerospace would then launch a full
commercial space industry. The company has man-
standard module that will also be attached to the
ufactured, launched, and is operating two technolo-
Sundancer and node/bus complex.
gy demonstration spacecraft (Genesis I and Genesis
II) that are validating the fundamental engineering
concepts necessary to construct an expandable
orbital habitat. Bigelow Aerospace is currently
planning to construct and launch larger and more
complex spacecraft over the next few years, all of
which are being designed to support a crewed pres-
ence in LEO.
Enabling Technologies
Friction Stir Welding - composite LOX tank under SBIR Phase 2 funding.
Space Exploration Technologies Microcosm successfully tested a 64-centimeter (25-
Corporation inch) diameter, all-composite LOX tank to nearly
four times its operating pressure of 3,790 kilopas-
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation
cals (550 pounds per square inch). Testing occurred
(SpaceX) uses friction stir welding during the con-
at cryogenic temperatures using liquid nitrogen.
struction of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The Falcon
The new materials technology used for the tank
9’s first and second stage walls use a high-perform-
comes from Composite Technology Development
ance aluminum-lithium alloy. This is difficult and
Inc. of Lafayette, Colorado. A month later,
disadvantageous to weld with traditional techniques
Microcosm announced the successful completion of
because the lightweight lithium vaporizes when
final qualification tests on the full-scale, all-com-
melted, changing the alloy composition and produc-
posite cryogenic LOX tank for the Sprite SLV. This
ing a joint that is far weaker than the adjoining
time the testing was done for a full-scale, 107-cen-
material. Friction stir welding forms a metal-to-
timeter (42-inch diameter), all-composite, LOX
metal joint without melting, using only friction and
tank to nearly four times its operating pressure of
pressure. Thus, the alloy composition remains unaf-
3,790-kilopascals (550-pounds per square inch).
fected and retains its strength. This allows for the
Microcosm’s tank design and manufacturing
creation of some of the lightest and strongest possi-
method prevents gas permeation/leakage, and man-
ble metal alloy tanks.76
ages the typical micro-cracking that has always
been the problem with all-composite tanks at cryo-
genic temperatures. The tank design allows for
reduction in the weight of the propellant tanks for
Sprite and increases the mass to orbit by over 30
percent. Microcosm intends to offer this technology
in a range of sizes as well as custom-made pressure
vessels for industrial applications where ultra-high,
strength-to-weight ratio is important. The composite
tank is scheduled to be flight proven in early
2008.77
2001, the CALVEIN work has resulted in numerous Reaction Control Engine program. The engine,
static fire tests and 15 flight tests, including devel- dubbed the TR408, ensures that the fuel and oxidiz-
opment of the CSULB aerospike engine as well as er fully vaporize by passing the propellants through
the more recent missions involving the prototype cooling passages located in the thrust chamber wall
RLV test bed. before injecting them into the chamber for combus-
tion. This technique ensures consistent performance
and combustion stability. Previous rocket engine
designs using propellant to cool the chamber do not
vaporize any of the propellant or may only vaporize
one of the propellants, typically the fuel. The
TR408 uses a simple design consisting of only two
propellant valves, no moving parts other than the
valves, and contains a built-in spark igniter to initi-
ate combustion of the injected propellants.
jet engine technology within the Mach 4.5-6.5 off gross weight.103 In 2007, Andrews continued
range with four flight tests beginning in 2009. testing of the ACES system and successfully vali-
According to PWR, the program will set the foun- dated that rotary packing material could be used in
dation for several hypersonic applications including the fractional distillation process at forces in excess
access to space. Additional tests in early 2008 will of 1-G.104
verify engine performance and operability across
the X-51A flight envelope.102 Air Launch Method – AirLaunch LLC
Propellant Production –
Andrews Space, Inc.
Andrews Space, Inc., of Seattle, Washington,
has developed an in-flight propellant collection sys-
tem, the “Alchemist” Air Collection and
Enrichment System (ACES), which generates LOX
through the separation of atmospheric air. The QuickReach Drop Test
ACES takes high-pressure air from turbofan jet
engines flying at subsonic speeds and cools it by In July 2006, AirLaunch LLC dropped a full-
passing the air through a series of heat exchangers scale simulated QuickReach rocket, weighing
cooled by both oxygen-depleted air and liquid almost 33,000 kilograms (72,000 pounds) and
hydrogen. Then, using a fractional distillation measuring 20 meters (66 feet) in length, from an
process, liquid oxygen is separated and stored in Air Force C-17 cargo plane as part of the
propellant tanks for use by liquid hydrogen and liq- DARPA/Air Force Falcon SLV Program. The
uid oxygen rocket engines. unmodified C-17A aircraft released the test article
at an airspeed of 600 kilometers/hour (330 knots)
from an altitude of 9,700 meters (32,000 feet). The
drop was third in a series of envelope expansion
tests to verify the ability of the C-17 safely to deliv-
er AirLaunch’s full-scale, full-weight QuickReach
rocket to its operational launch altitude. Previous
tests took place in June 2006 and in September
2005. Each test set a new C-17 record for the
longest and heaviest single item dropped from the
aircraft.105 The initial test in 2005 demonstrated the
QuickReach release technology, including proof
that the nose of the rocket does not hit the roof of
the C-17A airplane as the booster leaves the carrier
aircraft. The Falcon SLV program’s Phase 2C
Andrews ACES Test
includes a launch demonstration that could occur in
2008. AirLaunch did not conduct any further tests
In March 2006, DARPA/AFRL awarded of the unique air launch system in 2007, instead
Andrews Space, Inc., additional funding to demon- focusing on development of propulsion systems for
strate operational capabilities of its Alchemist the QuickReach as detailed earlier in this chapter.106
ACES. Under the new contract, valued close to
$350,000, Andrews will advance the state-of-the-art Thermal Protection System –
and demonstrate critical ACES components and Andrews Space, Inc.
operating parameters. This bridge funding is meant
In December 2007, Andrews Space, Inc.,
to permit early demonstration of the technologies
announced the development and testing of new
required and to make significant program risk
material for enabling advanced thermal protection
reductions. Development and demonstration of
systems. The tests, conducted at the NASA Ames
these technologies offers a hybrid approach to rock-
Research Center arc-jet facility as part of a NASA
et propulsion, which can significantly reduce take-
Spaceports
Launch and reentry sites—often referred to as eral and federal U.S. spaceports capable of support-
“spaceports”—are the nation’s gateways to and ing launch and landing activities are described. A
from space. Although individual capabilities vary, subsection detailing state and private proposals for
these facilities may house launch pads and runways future spaceports is also included.
as well as the infrastructure, equipment, and fuels
needed to process launch vehicles and their pay- Non-Federal Spaceports
loads before launch. The first such facilities in the
While the majority of licensed launch activity
United States emerged in the 1940s when the feder-
still occurs at U.S. federal ranges, significant future
al government began to build and operate space
launch and landing activity may originate from
launch ranges and bases to meet a variety of nation-
spaceports operated by private entities or state and
al needs.
local governments. For a U.S. person or institution
that is a non-federal entity to operate a launch or
While U.S. military and civil government
reentry site in the U.S. or U.S. territories, it is nec-
agencies were the original and still are the primary
essary to obtain a license from the federal govern-
users and operators of these facilities, commercial
ment through the FAA. To date, the FAA has
payload customers have become frequent users of
licensed six non-federal launch sites. Three are co-
federal spaceports. Federal facilities are not the
located with federal launch sites, including the
only portals to and from space. Indeed, the com-
California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
mercial dimension of U.S. space activity is evident
California; the Cape Canaveral Spaceport at Cape
not only in the numbers of commercially procured
Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida; and the Mid-
launches but also in the presence of non-federal
Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Flight
launch sites supplementing federally operated sites.
Facility, Virginia. In addition, Blue Origin utilizes
Since 1996, the FAA has licensed the operations of
an exclusive use launch site in western Texas that is
six launch or reentry sites, some of which are co-
not an FAA licensed spaceport. Similarly, Sea
located with federal facilities. These spaceports
Launch also does not need an FAA launch site
serve both commercial and government payload
operator license. The first orbital launch from an
owners.
FAA-licensed site occurred on January 6, 1998,
when a Lockheed Martin Athena 2, carrying
Table 1 shows which states have non-federal,
NASA’s Lunar Prospector spacecraft, successfully
federal, and proposed spaceports. Figure 1 shows a
lifted off from Cape Canaveral Spaceport. Table 2
map of U.S. spaceports and launch sites. Non-fed-
summarizes the characteristics of non-federal
Table 2: Spaceport Summary by State spaceports.
State Non-federal Federal Proposed
Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site
Alabama
Alaska Blue Origin West Texas launch site is a pri-
California vate property owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder of
Florida Amazon.com and Blue Origin, LLC. After purchas-
Kwajalein ing almost 66,800 hectares (165,000 acres) of
New Mexico
desert 40 kilometers (25 miles) north of Van Horn,
in Culberson County, Texas, the entrepreneur
Oklahoma
expressed interest in building and operating a pri-
Texas
vate spaceport. Blue Origin proposes to launch
Virginia RLVs on suborbital, ballistic trajectories to altitudes
Washington in excess of 99,000 meters (325,000 feet). To con-
Wisconsin duct these operations, Blue Origin would construct
Wyoming a private launch site, including a vehicle processing
California Vandenberg Spaceport Existing launch pads, runways, payload SLC 8 modified to support Minotaur IV.
Spaceport AFB, California Systems processing facilities, telemetry, and
International tracking equipment.
Cape Canaveral Cape Space Florida One orbital launch complex with a The quadra-axial static rocket test stand is
Spaceport Canaveral, remote control center, one suborbital under construction. It can accommodate
Florida launch complex with two pads and a engines up to 44,500 newtons (10,000 lbf)
blockhouse, an off-site solid rocket thrust.
motor storage that includes heavy rail
access, a 27-m (90-ft) high bay with
overhead cranes, a storage building,
and a 5,200-m2 (50,000-ft2) RLV
support hangar.
Kodiak Launch Kodiak Island, Alaska Aerospace Launch control center, payload In 2006, AADC added eight additional
Complex Alaska Development processing facility, and integration and redundant telemetry links to its range safety
Corporation processing facility, orbital and suborbital and telemetry system. Future expansion plans
launch pads, and maintenance and include building a second suborbital launch
storage facilities. pad and a motor storage facility, and
increasing fiber-optic bandwidth to the
continental United States.
Mid-Atlantic Wallops Island, Virginia Two orbital launch pads, payload Site is operational. Currently it is conducting
Regional Spaceport Virginia Commercial Space processing and integration facility the planning and investigation of the
Flight Authority vehicle storage and assembly buildings, expansion of capability to include heavier lift in
mobile liquid fueling capability, on-site support of commercial cargo to LEO
and downrange telemetry and tracking, operations.
and payload recovery capability.
Mojave Air and Mojave, East Kern Airport Air traffic control tower, three runways,Infrastructure upgrades for 2007 were affected
Space Port California District rotor test stand, engineering facilities,by the July 26 explosion. Funding has been
high bay building. Easy access to received for the construction of a more
restricted airspace. Space zoned reliable water delivery system that includes
specifically for rocket motor extension and upgrade of the water
development and testing. distribution system, as well as construction of
an additional water storage tank. The
construction is expected to be completed by
spring 2008.
Oklahoma Washita Oklahoma Space A 4,115-m (13,500-ft) runway; 5,200-m2 The Clinton-Sherman AFB at Burns Flat was
Spaceport County, Industry (50,000-ft2) manufacturing facility; designated as the future spaceport. OSIDA
Oklahoma Development 2 2 received a Launch Site Operators License
2,7850-m (30,000-ft ) maintenance and
Authority from the FAA in June 2006. In June 2007,
painting hangar; 6 commercial aircraft
2 Armadillo launched the first flight under the
hangars, including a 2,787-m (30,000- new experimental permit rules from Oklahoma
ft2) maintenance and paint facility; 39- Spaceport.
ha (96-a) of concrete ramp, control
tower, crash and rescue facility; and
435-km2 (168-m2) of land available for
further construction.
∗ Spaceport
Washington
Spaceport Sheboygan
∗
Chugwater Spaceport
∗
Wallops Flight
♦
•
Facility
Mid-Atlantic
California Spaceport
•
♦
Regional Spaceport
•♦Mojave Air and Space Port
Vandenberg AFB
Edwards AFB • Oklahoma Spaceport
∗
Spaceport America
♦
White Sands Missile Range
-Kennedy Space Center
Spaceport Alabama
• ∗ West Texas Spaceport ∗ ∗
-Cape Canaveral Air Force
Blue Origin Station
Cecil Field Spaceport
Exclusive Use Launch Site •♦ -Cape Canaveral Spaceport
facility, launch complex, vehicle landing and recov- services and is operated and managed by Spaceport
ery area, spaceflight participant training facility, Systems International (SSI), a limited partnership
and other support facilities.111 of ITT Federal Service Corporation. Co-located at
VAFB on the central California coast, SSI signed a
After reviewing the environmental assessment 25-year lease in 1995 for 0.44 square kilometers
and finding of no significant impact for the pro- (0.17 square miles) of land. Located at 34º North
posed Blue Origin West Texas launch site, FAA latitude, the California Spaceport can support a
issued to Blue Origin the first experimental permit variety of mission profiles to low-polar-orbit incli-
for a reusable suborbital rocket in September 2006. nations, with possible launch azimuths ranging
This type of permit was first authorized by the from 220° to 165°.
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004. The vehicle to be tested will be unmanned Construction of the California Spaceport com-
and will be launched and landed vertically during mercial launch facility began in 1995 and was com-
tests. The permit granted to Blue Origin is a one- pleted in 1999. The design concept is based on a
year, renewable permit, allowing for unlimited “building block” approach. Power and communica-
launches. Such permits are intended to allow launch tions cabling were routed underground to provide a
vehicle developers to flight test their designs.112 The launch pad with the flexibility to accommodate a
first flight of Goddard, a subscale protype of the variety of launch systems. The current Space
company’s planned New Shepard vehicle, took Launch Complex 8 (SLC-8) configuration consists
place in November 2006; subsequent flights of of the following infrastructure: pad deck, support
Goddard took place in March and April 2007. equipment building, launch equipment vault, launch
duct, launch stand, access tower, communications
California Spaceport equipment, and Integrated Processing Facility (IPF)
On September 19, 1996, the California launch control room, as well as the required
Spaceport became the first commercial spaceport Western Range interfaces needed to support a
licensed by the FAA. The California Spaceport launch. During 2007, the spaceport has been
offers commercial launch and payload processing upgrading both the IPF and SLC-8 to meet user
requirements, and thus has not been able to support
any launches from the SLC-8. The modifications meter (13- and 16-foot) payloads. This contract
for SLC-8 to support the Minotaur 4 launch system complements an existing 10-year NASA payload-
included upgrades to SLC-8 Mobile Access Tower processing contract for Delta II class 3-meter (10-
and the Launch Equipment Vault (LEV).113 The foot) payloads. SSI is working with several launch
modifications were completed on schedule, in providers for national missile defense support. The
December 2007. The upgrades have been financed National Reconnaissance Office has contracted with
through USAF government contracts as well as pri- SSI to provide payload processing until 2015. This
vate capitalization projects.114 When fully devel- contract covers Delta IV and Atlas V EELV-class
oped, SLC-8 will accommodate a wide variety of payload processing support for multiple missions to
launch vehicles, including the Minuteman-based be launched from VAFB. NASA and commercial
Minotaur and Castor 120-based vehicles such as the Delta-class payloads are also processed at the IPF
Taurus. for launch on the Delta II from SLC-2W at VAFB.
of small launch vehicles, and has already success- process in order to receive authorization to fly from
fully launched the Athena 1 and Athena 2 rockets. the Eastern Range.118
With further modifications, LC-46 could accommo-
date vehicles carrying payloads in excess of 1,800 Although no launches took place from Cape
kilograms (4,000 pounds) to LEO. During 2007, Canaveral Spaceport in 2007, Space Florida provid-
Space Florida refurbished the LC-46 Mobile Access ed incentives to SpaceX as part of their NASA
Structure. This was a $100,000 investment, COTS efforts. The State of Florida was instrumen-
financed through government appropriations. tal in SpaceX securing a five-year license from the
USAF for LC-40 at CCAFS. Space Florida has pro-
As part of an overall effort to expand use of vided over $600,000 worth of assistance to SpaceX
the Cape for research, development, and education- through economic incentives such as office space,
al activities, Space Florida obtained a five-year concept of operations design studies, and environ-
license from the Air Force to use LC-47. This mental studies. Using CASPER, Space Florida has
launch complex was upgraded to support a signifi- also provided professional consultant services to
cant number of suborbital launch vehicles carrying SpaceX to guide it in the development of range
academic payloads for research and training pur- documentation and flight safety systems to help it
poses. In May 2007, the construction of a quadra- secure required launch approvals and authoriza-
axial static rocket motor test stand started. The tion.119
stand will be capable of accommodating motors up
to 30 centimeters (12 inches) in diameter, with a In the future, Space Florida plans to incorpo-
maximum average thrust of 53,400 newtons rate a high-expansion foam fire-fighting system into
(12,000 pounds-force). The delivery of this system the RLV support hangar. The Cape Canaveral
is expected in the spring of 2008.115 Spaceport expects to receive between $7-10 million
in direct appropriations to support its operations
Space Florida’s Strategic Business Plan rec- during fiscal year 2008.120
ommends upgrading and marketing the commercial
launch facilities at LC-46 at the Cape Canaveral Kodiak Launch Complex
Spaceport, developing a spaceport operating model In 1991, the Alaska state legislature created
to manage the Cape Canaveral Spaceport and other the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation
Florida spaceports, and providing economic incen- (AADC) as a public company to develop aero-
tive options to assist NASA COTS competitors.116 space-related economic, technical, and educational
During 2007, Space Florida has contracted with opportunities for the state of Alaska. In 2000, the
Reynolds, Smith, and Hills, an architecture, engi- AADC completed the $40-million, two-year con-
neering and planning firm, to develop an update of struction of the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) at
its five-year Master Plan. The plan will be submit- Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island, Alaska. The first
ted to the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) and appropriate metropolitan planning
organizations for review of inter-modal impacts and
inclusion of eligible projects in FDOT’s five-year
work program. The update is expected to be com-
pleted by March 2008.117
licensed launch site not co-located with a federal allows all-weather launch operations. Future expan-
facility, KLC was also the first new U.S. launch site sion plans include building a second suborbital
built since the 1960s. Owned by the state of Alaska launch pad and a motor storage facility, and
and operated by the AADC, the KLC received ini- increasing fiber-optic bandwidth to the continental
tial funding from the USAF, U.S. Army, NASA, United States.
state of Alaska, and private firms. Today, it is self-
sustaining through launch revenues and receives no The KLC Range Safety and Telemetry System
state funding; the state of Alaska provides tax-free (RSTS) was delivered in September 2003 and
status and has contributed the land on which the upgraded in 2005. This RSTS consists of two fully
spaceport resides. redundant systems: one for on-site, the other for
off-axis. Each part of the RSTS consists of two 5.4-
Kodiak has conducted eleven successful meter (17.7-foot) dishes with eight telemetry links
launches since 1998. Located at 57º North latitude, featuring command destruct capabilities. The
Kodiak Launch Complex occupies a 12.4-square- Kodiak RSTS number 1 system will be located on a
kilometer (4.8-square mile) site 438 kilometers newly constructed multi-elevation antenna field that
(272 miles) south of Anchorage and 40 kilometers also supports customer-unique instrumentation.
(25 miles) southwest of the city of Kodiak. The
launch site itself encompasses a nearly five-kilome- Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport
ter (three-mile) area around Launch Pad 1. Kodiak The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport
provides a wide launch azimuth and unobstructed (MARS) is designed to provide “one-stop-shop-
downrange flight path. Kodiak’s markets are mili- ping” for space launch facilities and services for
tary launches, government and commercial commercial, government, scientific, and academic
telecommunications, remote sensing, and space sci- users. From its location on the Atlantic coast, this
ence payloads weighing up to 1,000 kilograms spaceport can accommodate a wide range of orbital
(2,200 pounds). These payloads can be delivered
into LEO, polar, and Molniya elliptical orbits.
Kodiak is designed to launch up to Castor 120-
based vehicles, including the Athena 1 and 2, and
has been used on a number of occasions to launch
military suborbital rockets.
inclinations and launch azimuths. Optimal orbital companies and has an interest in supporting future
inclinations accessible from the site are between RLVs, possibly using its launch pads or three run-
38° and 60°; other inclinations, including Sun-syn- ways at WFF.122
chronous orbit (SSO), can be reached through in-
flight maneuvers. MARS has two launch pads. Launch pad 0-B,
its first launch pad, was designed as a “universal
The FAA issued a launch site operator’s launch pad,” capable of supporting a variety of
license to the Virginia Commercial Space Flight small and medium ELVs with gross liftoff weights
Authority (VCSFA) in December 1997. In July of up to 283,000 kilograms (624,000 pounds) that
2003, Virginia and Maryland created a bi-state can place up to 4,500 kilograms (9,900 pounds)
agreement to operate, conduct future development into LEO. The Mobile Service Structure offers
of, and promote the spaceport. The agreement also complete vehicle enclosure, flexible access, and can
renamed the spaceport, previously called the be readily modified to support specific vehicle
Virginia Space Flight Center, to MARS. operations. The site also includes a complete com-
mand, control, and communications interface with
MARS received $100,000 in July 2007 as fis- the launch range. In March 2000, MARS acquired a
cal year 2008 appropriation from Virginia. In addi- second pad at WFF, launch pad 0A. MARS started
tion, MARS benefits from the following incentives: refurbishing launch pad 0A and its 25-meter (82-
state sales and use tax exemptions on all goods foot) service tower in June 2000. Launch pad 0A
used, consumed or launched from MARS; state and will support launches of small ELVs with gross
local personal property tax exemption on machinery liftoff weights of up to 90,000 kilograms (198,000
and equipment used as part of value added process pounds) and that can place up to 1,350 kilograms
for vehicles and payloads launched from MARS; (3,000 pounds) into LEO.
state sponsored workforce training grants for new
employees of aerospace companies working at or MARS is cooperating with NASA WFF in the
with MARS; state- and local-sponsored access to construction a $4-million logistics and processing
flex space in the industrial park adjacent to MARS; facility in the Wallops Research Park that includes
tort liability exclusion in Virginia courts resulting high bay and clean room environments. In conjunc-
from personal space flight activities at MARS; state tion with WFF, MARS constructed a mobile Liquid
enterprise zone established at MARS to enable Fueling Facility capable of supporting a wide range
rapid access to infrastructure development grants. of liquid-fueled and hybrid rockets. In 2007, MARS
Also, VCSFA/MARS has bonding authority to issue completed the upgrade of the class-100,000 high
state tax exempt development bonds. bay 1 of the new multi-purpose processing facility,
as well as added environmental control systems to
CSC-DynSpace LLC currently operates the launch pad 0-B Movable Service Structure.
MARS. In 1997, VCSFA signed a Reimbursable While the improvements to the high bay were in
Space Act Agreement with NASA to use the WFF majority financed by the Federal government, the
infrastructure to support commercial launches. This launch pad construction was financed from the
30-year agreement allows MARS access to NASA’s spaceport revenue and cost approximately
payload integration, launch operations, and moni- $100,000.123 Future infrastructure improvement
toring facilities on a non-interference, cost reim- plans include enhanced capability for pad 0-B
bursement basis. NASA and MARS personnel work Movable Service Structure to accommodate addi-
together with commercial customers to facilitate tional launch vehicles.
use of MARS facilities and services.
Highlights for 2007 include the two orbital
MARS has an official development plan, launches from launch pad 0-B within a four-month
approved by the VCSFA Board of Directors. The period. The first launch, of the USAF Space
plan was expanded in February 2007 to include the Development and Test Wing (SDTW)
capability to process and launch heavier payloads SDTW/AFRL TacSat 2 satellite, took place in
and vehicles, such as those being developed in sup- December 2006, while the second one, of a USAF
port of the NASA COTS initiative.121 The spaceport SDTW/MDA NFIRE satellite, happened in April
is actively pursuing partnerships with space tourism 2007. The first launch was performed with only a
five month call-up period for a launch vehicle never aviation propeller aircraft and helicopters. The
before launched from MARS (Minotaur I). MARS extension of runway 12-30 and over $250,000
also contracted with NASA and the U.S. Air Force worth of repairs to the airfield and taxiways were
for the NASA ALV-X1 launch in February 2008 completed in November 2006. The cost of infra-
and for USAF SDTW/AFRL TacSat 3 launch in structure upgrades totaled $10.5 million with 95
June 2008.124 Another highlight for 2007 is the pass- percent of the funding provided by the FAA and 5
ing of the Spaceflight Liability and Immunity Act, percent by EKAD.125
Code of Virginia, Chapter 3, Title 8.01-227.8 et.al.
in April of 2007. Mojave Air and Space Port serves as a
Civilian Flight Test Center with access to R-2508
Mojave Air and Space Port restricted airspace. The airport has 162 hectares
(400 acres) of land available for immediate con-
Mojave Air and Space Port (formerly Mojave
struction. In addition, over 121 hectares (300 acres)
Airport) in Mojave, California, became the first
are zoned specifically for rocket motor testing and
inland launch site licensed by the FAA on June 17,
development. Currently six companies are actively
2004, allowing Mojave Air and Space Port to sup-
developing and testing rocket motors.
port suborbital launches of RLVs. The Kern
County, California, government established the
Infrastructure upgrades planned for 2007 were
Mojave Airport in 1935. The original facility was
affected by the July 26 explosion during a cold-
equipped with taxiways and basic support infra-
flow test of a nitrous oxide propellant system for
structure for general aviation. A short time after its
SpaceShipTwo. The spaceport however received
inception, the Mojave Airport became a Marine
funding from the Economic Development
Auxiliary Air Station. The largest general aviation
Administration (EDA) to provide a more reliable
airport in Kern County, Mojave Air and Space Port
water delivery system for fire protection beyond a
is owned and operated by the East Kern Airport
single event occurrence. Such system includes
District (EKAD), which is a special district with an
extension and upgrade of the water distribution sys-
elected Board of Directors and a General Manager.
tem as well as construction of an additional water
storage tank. The construction is expected to be
completed by spring 2008.
Mojave Air and Space Port has been part of Burns Flat. On December 5, 2006, the city of
two record-breaking events in this decade. Clinton conveyed ownership of the CSIA to
SpaceShipOne rocketed past the boundary of space OSIDA. Existing infrastructure includes a 4,100-
on September 29, 2004, and again on October 4, meter (13,500-foot) runway, large maintenance and
2004, to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize. In repair hangars, utilities, a rail spur, and 12.4 square
December 2005, the EZ-Rocket made a record-set- kilometers (4.8 square miles) of open land. Existing
ting point-to-point flight, departing from the buildings could serve to house spaceplanes, manu-
Mojave Air and Space Port and gliding to a touch- facturing facilities, and even a passenger terminal.127
down at an airport in neighboring California City.126 On July 13, 2007, the Oklahoma State Legislature
approved $2 million in funding for upgraded securi-
Oklahoma Spaceport ty fencing and control tower improvements. Future
After seven years of development, in June development plans include enhancing the facility’s
2006 the Oklahoma Spaceport became the sixth operational control room and hosting phased-array
commercial spaceport licensed by the FAA. In radar tests.
1999, the Oklahoma state legislature created the
Oklahoma’s site license clears the spaceport
Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority
for suborbital flights in a 110- x 270-kilometer (70-
(OSIDA). Directed by seven governor-appointed
x 170-mile) corridor of the prairie, with clearance
board members, OSIDA promotes the development
for launch vehicles to rise to the edge of outer
of spaceport facilities and space exploration, educa-
space.128 In June 2006, OSIDA signed a letter of
tion, and related industries in Oklahoma. Currently,
agreement with Fort Worth Air Route Traffic
the state of Oklahoma provides 100 percent of the
Control Center that provides procedures for the
operational funding for OSIDA, but the organiza-
integration of licensed launch operations into the
tion expects to be financially independent in the
National Airspace System from the Oklahoma
future, particularly now that it holds a commercial
Spaceport.129 Thus, this launch site became the first
launch site operator license. Still, direct financial
U.S. inland spaceport with an established fight cor-
support varies with specific needs for facility
ridor for space operations in the national airspace
upgrades or operations. OSIDA intends to submit a
system clear of military operating areas or restricted
request for one-time capital expenditures for facility
airspace. This arrangement means that space vehi-
upgrades and expects to receive the support during
cles will not need military permission to operate
fiscal year 2008. Infrastructure development plans
because the spaceport will have its own air space.
for fiscal year 2008 include additional fencing for
The spaceport license was granted for five years.
the spaceport and development of a Fight
Operations Control Center, located in the OSIDA
The Oklahoma Department of Commerce
headquarters. Besides state funding, NASA issued a
offers several incentives to attract space-related
$915,000 grant to OSIDA for aerospace education
businesses. For example, a jobs program provides
programs.
qualifying companies with quarterly cash payments
worth up to five percent of its new taxable payroll
for up to ten years. Organizations also may qualify
for other state tax credits, tax refunds, tax exemp-
tions, and training incentives. Rocketplane Inc. and
TGV Rockets, Inc. have located in Oklahoma for
their launch vehicle developments. As the first cor-
poration that meets specific qualifying criteria,
including equity capitalization of $10 million and
creation of at least 100 Oklahoma jobs, Rocketplane
Oklahoma Spaceport
qualified for an $18-million, state-provided tax
credit. Another company pursuing space-related
The FAA license allows OSIDA to provide
activities in Oklahoma, Armadillo Aerospace, con-
launch and support services for horizontally-
ducted tethered operational testing at the Oklahoma
launched suborbital RLVs at the Clinton-Sherman
Spaceport with the vehicle that was used for the
Industrial Airpark (CSIA) launch site, located near
Within the last 10 years, EAFB has been the cle was housed and serviced in a horizontal posi-
home of more than 10 experimental projects, tion; and hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen storage
among them the X-33 airplane. The X-33 launch tanks. In 2006, three glide tests were successfully
site consisted of an X-33-specifc launch pad; a con- completed on the DARPA-sponsored X-37
trol center to be used for launch monitoring and autonomous research vehicle.
mission control; a movable hangar where the vehi-
azimuths; unique instrumentation; and ability to honor of General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, the Air
support ballistic missile testing and space opera- Force’s second Chief of Staff. VAFB is currently
tions. RTS is completely instrumented to support the headquarters of the 30th Space Wing and the
space launch customers with radar, telemetry, Air Force Space Command organization responsi-
optics, and range safety systems. As a U.S. Army ble for all DoD space and ballistic activities for the
DoD MRTFB, RTS receives annual federal funding West Coast. The 30th Space Wing Western Range
in addition to direct cost reimbursement from cus- Operations Control Center provides flight safety,
tomers. weather, scheduling, instrumentation control, vehi-
cle designation information, and tracking data to
and from inter- and intra-range sensors in real or
nearly real-time for ballistic and space launch sup-
port. Range tracking capabilities extend over the
Pacific Ocean as far west as the Marshall Islands.
Boundaries to the north stretch as far as Alaska and
as far south as Central America. Vandenberg is host
to the 14th Air Force Headquarters and the Joint
Functional Component Command. Space infrastruc-
ture used for space launches at VAFB includes a
4,500-meter (15,000-foot) runway; boat dock; rail
lines; launch, booster, and payload processing facil-
ities; tracking radar; optical tracking and telemetry
Interceptor launched from Meck2 at Reagan Test Site facilities; and control centers. The 400-square-kilo-
meter (155-square-mile)
A new launch pad on Omelek Island was con- base also houses numerous
structed in 2006 to support space launch missions. government organizations
The Army began deployment of a fiber optic com- and contractor companies.
munications system to the continental United VAFB hosts a variety of
States, to be completed in late 2009, along with a federal agencies and attracts
Huntsville, Alabama, Mission Control Center that commercial aerospace com-
supports net-centric distributed operations.138 panies and activities, includ-
ing the California Spaceport
With nearly 40 years of successful support, effort. The 30th Space Wing
RTS provides a vital role in the research, develop- supports West Coast launch
ment, test and evaluation effort of America’s mis- activities for the USAF,
sile defense and space programs. At least 17 organi- DoD, NASA, MDA and
zations, representing the military, academia, civil various private industry
government, and commercial interests, use RTS.139 contractors. VAFB is
Among the users, there are U.S. Army, Navy, Air upgrading its range instru-
Force, NSA, DOE, NRO, DARPA, Orbital mentation and control cen-
Sciences, and SpaceX. The SpaceX launches of ters to support the space
March 2006 and March 2007 were successfully launch industry. Scheduled
supported at RTS, although payloads did not reach for completion by 2010,
orbit. A Pegasus XL launch is scheduled from these upgrades will auto-
Kwajalein in 2008. mate the Western Range and
provide updated services to
Vandenberg Air Force Base the customer. For the devel-
In 1941, the U.S. Army activated this site near opment of launch infrastruc-
Lompoc, California, as Camp Cook. In 1957, Camp ture for the EELV program,
Cook was transferred to the Air Force, becoming VAFB has partnered with
Delta II preparing for
the nation’s first space and ballistic missile opera- launch at VAFB Boeing and Lockheed
tions and training base. In 1958, it was renamed in Martin.
Boeing has renovated Space Launch Complex for NASA by the Goddard Space Flight Center,
6 (SLC-6) from a Space Shuttle launch pad into an Greenbelt, Maryland.
operational facility for Delta IV. Construction at
SLC-6 has included enlarging the existing mobile WFF’s primary mission is to serve as a
service tower and completing the construction of research and test range for NASA, supporting sci-
the West Coast Horizontal Integration Facility, entific research, technology development, flight
where the Delta IV is assembled. testing, and educational flight projects. WFF, how-
ever, also heavily supports the DoD and commer-
Lockheed Martin converted SLC-3E from an cial industry with flight projects ranging from small
Atlas 2 launch pad into an operational facility for suborbital vehicles to orbital launch vehicles. In
Atlas V. The upgrades started in January 2004, addition to rockets, WFF’s integrated Launch
which include adding 9 meters (30 feet) to the Range and Research Airport enables flight opera-
existing 61-meter (200-foot) mobile service tower tions of UAVs and other experimental craft. WFF
to accommodate the larger rocket. A crane capable frequently serves as a downrange site for launches
of lifting 20 tons was replaced with one that can lift conducted from Cape Canaveral.
60 tons. Current space launch vehicles supported by
VAFB include Delta II, Delta IV, Atlas V, Taurus,
Minotaur, Pegasus XL, and Falcon 1. During 2007,
VAFB supported three Delta II launches and one
Pegasus XL launch. Orbital Sciences’ Taurus is
launched from 576E. Pegasus XL vehicles are
processed at Orbital Sciences’ facility at VAFB then
flown to various worldwide launch areas.
Vandenberg supports numerous ballistic programs,
including Minuteman and numerous MDA test and
operational programs. SpaceX maintains a launch
pad at SLC-3 West for its Falcon 1 rocket, and
plans future developments for its larger Falcon 9
rocket for sending commercial and government Wallops Flight Facility
payloads into polar and other high inclination
orbits. MARS is co-located at WFF as a tenant, and
the organizations collaborate on certain projects to
Vandenberg Air Force Base has active part- provide mission services, particularly focusing on
nerships with private commercial space organiza- small commercial ELVs. Jointly, WFF and MARS
tions in which VAFB provides launch property and offer two orbital and several suborbital launchers, a
launch services. The private companies use the gov- range control center, three blockhouses, numerous
ernment or commercial facilities to conduct launch, payload and vehicle preparation facilities, and a full
payload, and booster processing work. VAFB hous- suite of tracking and data systems. In support of its
es three commercially owned complexes: Boeing’s research and program management responsibilities,
Horizontal Integration Facility, Spaceport Systems Wallops also contains numerous science facilities, a
International’s (SSI) California Spaceport and research airport, and flight hardware fabrication and
Payload Processing Facility, and Astrotech’s test facilities.
Payload Processing Facility.140
WFF has continued a significant range mod-
Wallops Flight Facility ernization and technology program that began in
2002. WFF engineers are also actively pursuing
The predecessor of NASA, the National
new range technologies that will increase respon-
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, (NACA),
siveness and lower costs, such as space-based com-
established an aeronautical and rocket test range at
munications systems and an autonomous flight ter-
Wallops Island, Virginia, in 1945. Since then, over
mination system.141 The Payload Processing Facility
15,000 rocket launches have taken place from the
is operational and being used. The class-100,000
Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), which is operated
certification testing for the entire facility is pending,
as only half the facility obtained this certification. Since establishment in 1945, the range has
The new project support facility, providing auditori- fired more than 44,500 missiles and rockets. Almost
um capabilities for large gatherings, including pre- 1,200 of those were research and sounding rockets.
mission reviews and observation of the launch, was WSMR has seven engine test stands and precision
completed in 2007.142 The new engineering facility cleaning facilities, including a class-100 clean room
hosting WFF engineering staff and laboratories was for spacecraft parts. After KSC and EAFB, White
also finished in 2007.143 Final certification of the Sands is the Space Shuttle’s tertiary landing site.
Wallops Mobile Liquid Fueling Facility is still to be This landing site consists of two 11-kilometer (6.8
completed. Future plans include a barge dock mile) long gypsum-sand runways.144 Test operations
improvement to enable water transport between the are run out of the new J.W. Cox Range Control
Mainbase and the Island campuses. Center. This $28-million facility was designed to
meet current and future mission requirements with
During 2006, WFF’s Research Range support- state-of-the-art networking, computing, and com-
ed 30 rocket tests. WFF is heavily engaged in sup- munications for effective interaction between test
porting both DoD and commercial interests in the operations and customers.
emerging small ELV community, such as those sup-
ported by the DARPA Falcon program. During In 2002, the U.S. Army, WSMR, and state of
2007, twelve suborbital and orbital rocket tests New Mexico signed a Memorandum of Agreement
were conducted from WFF. WFF supported MARS supporting the development of the Southwest
with two orbital missions: the launch of the USAF Regional Spaceport, which was renamed Spaceport
and NASA TacSat 2 satellite in December 2006, America in 2006. WSMR provided range support
and the NFIRE satellite in April 2007, each using a for the first suborbital rocket launch from Spaceport
Minotaur I. America in October 2006. WSMR provided track-
ing, communication and other services to support
White Sands Missile Range the suborbital space launch conducted by UP
Once exclusively military, White Sands Aerospace in April, 2007.145 Initially WSMR will
Missile Range (WSMR) today attracts other gov- provide a diversity of support services for
ernment agencies, foreign nations, and private Spaceport America, including flight safety, radar,
industry to its world-class test facilities. The largest optical tracking, and airspace and ground space for
overland test range in America, WSMR is operated touchdown and recovery.
by the U.S. Army and used by the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, and MDA. It is also home to Proposed Non-Federal Spaceports
the NASA White Sands Test Facility. Situated 26 Several states plan to develop spaceports
kilometers (16 miles) northeast of Las Cruces, New offering a variety of launch and landing services.
Mexico, this range covers 8,100 square kilometers Two common characteristics of many of the pro-
(3,127 square miles). posed spaceports are inland geography – a contrast
to the coastal location of all but two present-day
U.S. spaceports – and interest in hosting RLV oper-
ations. Table 5 describes specific efforts to establish
non-federal spaceports, which are in various stages
of development.
Spaceport Grant County Port of Moses Lake 4,100-m (13,452-ft) main runway and a A 12,100 ha (30,000-a) potential vertical launch
Washington International 3,200-m (10,500-ft) crosswind runway. site has been identified. An Aerospace Overlay
Airport, Zone has also been established in the Grant
Washington County Unified Development Code. The site is
certified as an emergency-landing site for the
Space Shuttle. Additional infrastructure
development is pending launch customers and
market responses.
West Texas Pecos County, Pecos County/West Greasewood site has an air conditioned Development plan approved by State of Texas in
Spaceport Texas Texas Spaceport control center, an industrial strength 2005. State has provided $175,000 in 2005 for
Development concrete pad, and a 30 x 30-m (100 x planning studies. Future infrastructure plans
Corporation 100-ft) scraped and level staging area. include 1,070-m (3,500-ft) runway, static engine
Broadband Internet on site, controlled testing facility, and balloon hangar.
fenced access, and a 1,295-km2 (500
mi2) recovery area. Airport has 5
runways (2,286 x 30-m, or 7,500 x 100-
ft) with hangar space.
acres), including the runways, hangars, and support that came from FAA Discretionary Funds and
infrastructure, and has operated the airport for Annual General Aviation Entitlements, as well as
maintenance and repair operations, general aviation from the Florida Department of Transportation and
activity, and limited military operations. The airport JAA.
was identified as a potential launch site in the feasi-
bility study of a Florida commercial spaceport. The plan is for Cecil Field Spaceport to use
Space Florida has been instrumental in providing facilities that currently exist at the site. Future
guidance and direction for the development of the infrastructure planned for the facility includes pave-
Cecil Field Spaceport.146 The JAA is pursuing a ment, fencing, stormwater plan, parking, access
launch site operator’s license. The environmental road improvements, and design and construction of
assessment needed for the issuance of the license an additional apron and of two additional hangars,
was completed in 2007. The JAA expects to submit each of 14,000 square meters (150,000 square feet).
an application for a launch site operator license in The hangars are scheduled for completion in 2008.
2008. The proposed spaceport operations, including hori-
zontal launches and launch recoveries, will be con-
The existing infrastructure of this airfield is ducted using Runway 18L/36R, which measures
conducive to spaceport operations, including one 3,810 meters (12,500 feet) in length and 60 meters
3,810-meter (12,500-foot) runway, three 2,440- (200 feet) in width.147
meter (8,000-foot) runways, 175 buildings totaling
270,000 square meters (2.9 million square feet), An official development plan focusing solely
eight aircraft hangars, an operating air traffic con- on the economic growth and operation of the Cecil
trol tower, warehouse, industrial and general use Field Spaceport is currently being considered for
space totaling more than 40,000 square meters development. The Cecil Field Airport Master Plan
(425,000 square feet), and general office and sup- and Airport Layout Plan Update were completed in
port facilities of over 21,000 square meters September 2007. These documents are currently
(225,000 square feet). The long runway, together under review by FAA, FDOT, and the City of
with its location in a sparsely populated area and Jacksonville, Florida.
the proximity to the coast, make this site attractive
for future commercial space activities. During Chugwater Spaceport
2007, JAA performed roof rehabilitation on six The Chugwater Spaceport was originally an
hangars and the terminal, structural upgrades and Atlas E missile base outside of Chugwater,
renovation of the air traffic control tower, and Wyoming, built in 1960 and decommissioned in
development of a new taxiway and an approach 1965. Designed to store and launch a complete
lighting system. JAA also conducted rehabilitation Atlas E ICBM, the facilities are designed with
of the airfield many special amenities for rocketry. In March
electrical sys- 2006, Frontier Astronautics bought the property and
tem, security began renovation to use it as a launch site.
fencing, and air-
field pavement, Since the last change in ownership, mainte-
as well as nance work has been performed to get original mili-
improvement in tary equipment operational. During 2006, three hor-
the stormwater izontal engine tests of a LOX and kerosene Viper
drainage and fire 33,360-newton (7,500-pound-force) engine took
suppression place at the Chugwater site. During 2007, several
waterline. The dozen test firings of rocket engines have occurred,
construction and as well as a completed flight vehicle test (the
rehabilitation SpeedUp Laramie Rose Lunar Lander Challenge
work JAA com- vehicle). All of these have taken place over the
pleted required instrumented flame trench. The tests were possible
an investment of because Frontier Astronautics obtained an exception
Cecil Field Aerial View
over $9 million to a countywide fire ban.
plan calls for the establishment of a “total spaceport access to nearly 6,070 hectares (15,000 acres) of
enterprise” concept, consisting of a departure and state trust land to begin developing the site.153 The
return facility, processing and support facilities, and spaceport is a 70-square-kilometer (27- square-
full support infrastructure. An R&D park, a com- mile) parcel of open land in the south central part
merce park, supporting community infrastructure, of the state, near the desert town of Upham, 72
intermodal connectivity, and other services and kilometers (45 miles) north of Las Cruces and 48
infrastructure necessary for providing a turnkey kilometers (30 miles) east of Truth or
capability in support of space commerce, R&D, Consequences, at approximately 1,430 meters
national security, science, and related services are (4,700 feet) above sea level. This location was
also included in this plan. Given that the site cur- selected for its low population density, uncongested
rently under consideration is adjacent to the Gulf of airspace, and high elevation.154
Mexico, Spaceport Alabama would service primari-
ly RLVs; however, some suborbital ELVs involving
scientific and academic missions could be support-
ed. The spaceport hopes to continue development as
industry opportunities emerge.
Spaceport America
The state of New Mexico continues to make
significant progress in the development of
Spaceport America, known as Southwest Regional
Spaceport prior to July 2006. In December 2005,
Cutaway View of Spaceport America facility
Richard Branson decided to establish the headquar-
ters of Virgin Galactic in New Mexico and use
During 2006, temporary facilities added to the
Spaceport America as its primary operating base.
site include a launch pad, a weather station, rocket
He also entered into a partnership with the state of
motor storage facilities, and trailers. This infrastruc-
New Mexico to build the spaceport. While the state
ture is worth $450,000; the funding came from pri-
would build the spaceport, Virgin Galactic would
vate and government sources. Major components of
sign a 20-year lease agreement with annual pay-
the proposed Spaceport America include two launch
ments of $1 million for the first 5 years. The state
complexes, a landing strip, an aviation complex,
government would pay about half of the construc-
and support facilities. The spaceport has an official-
tion cost, with the difference to come from local
ly approved development plan that includes begin-
and federal governments.150 The spaceport is
ning construction in third quarter of 2008, and hav-
planned to receive $140 million as direct financial
ing a full-fledged spaceport to support vertical
support from the state and $58 million as direct
launches, vertical landings, and horizontal landings
financial support from local government, beginning
by 2010.155 Currently, DMJM/AECOM, an architec-
with 2008.151
ture and engineering contractor, is designing the
Spaceport America is being developed for use facilities with inputs from the spaceport users, as
by private companies and government organizations the final configuration will be customer driven.
conducting space activities and operations. In
New Mexico provides several tax and busi-
March 2006, New Mexico passed a bill that created
ness incentives for the spaceport-related industrial
one entity, New Mexico Spaceport Authority, to
activities, including gross receipt deductions,
oversee the spaceport. Spaceport America is cur-
exemptions from compensating taxes, R&D incen-
rently taking steps to obtain an FAA launch site
tives, industrial revenue bonds, and investment and
operator license. The state owns and operates the
job training credits. The state has also passed legis-
spaceport and will lease the facilities to the users.
lation that allows counties and municipalities to
Currently, agreements are being developed with dif-
impose, upon voter approval, a regional spaceport
ferent organizations.152 In January 2006, New
gross receipt tax in increments of one-sixteenth per-
Mexico state officials signed an agreement that
cent, not to exceed one-half percent.156
gives the planned spaceport north of Las Cruces
The first launch from the spaceport took place its inception in 1995. Each year, hundreds of stu-
on September 25, 2006, when UP Aerospace dents from Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan
launched an amateur-class vehicle. On April 28, participate in these launches, which took place most
2007 UP Aerospace launched another amateur-class recently in May 2007. Rockets for Schools is a pro-
vehicle, SL-2. The commitment in building the gram of the Great Lakes Spaceport Education
spaceport, the recent activities there, and state Foundation.
incentives to locate space-related businesses in New
Mexico have made the state an attractive location The spaceport’s existing infrastructure
for rocket activity, such as Starchaser Industries, the includes a vertical pad for suborbital launches in
X PRIZE Cup, and the Rocket Racing League. addition to portable launch facilities, such as mis-
sion control, which are erected and disassembled as
Spaceport Sheboygan needed. The pier, which the city leased from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for spaceport
On August 29, 2000, the Wisconsin
launches and citizens’ enjoyment (i.e., walking and
Department of Transportation officially approved
fishing), was widened and strengthened in 2004. In
creating the Spaceport Sheboygan, located on Lake
May 2007, under the Rockets for Schools program,
Michigan in Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The city of
more than 45 rockets were launched off of the pier.
Sheboygan owns the spaceport, which strives to
In 2006 some structures were removed to clear
support space research and education through sub-
space for the construction of a proposed mission
orbital launches for student projects.
control and education center. Past construction has
Suborbital sounding rocket launches to alti- been financed through municipal, state, and federal
tudes of up to 55 kilometers (34 miles) have been agencies. The State of Wisconsin contributed to the
conducted at the site. Additionally, Rockets for development of the spaceport with site preparation
Schools, a student program founded in Wisconsin of coastline and access roads. No new infrastructure
by Space Explorers, Incorporated, and developed was constructed during 2007.
by the Aerospace States Association, has conducted
Legislation for the creation of the Wisconsin
suborbital launches at Spaceport Sheboygan since
Aerospace Authority (WAA) was signed into law in
2006. WAA will meet for the first time in January
2008. WAA will design, develop, and operate the
spaceport. The board was created to market the
state to the aerospace industry, develop space-relat-
ed tourism, and work with educators to promote
math and science classes with a greater focus on
aeronautics and engineering.157 The legislation
authorizes the WAA to develop spaceports, space-
craft, and other aerospace facilities in Wisconsin;
provide spaceport and aerospace services; allow use
of spaceport and aerospace facilities by others; pro-
mote the aerospace industry in Wisconsin; and pro-
vide public-private coordination for the aerospace
industry in Wisconsin.158 In addition to designing,
developing, and operating the spaceport, WAA is
authorized to sell up to $100 million in revenue
bonds.159
phase for the project includes proposing legislation private). The spaceport has also established an
for the development and operational plans of the Aerospace Overlay Zone within the Grant County
Spaceport Sheboygan. Once the legislation is Unified Development Code. This zone protects the
approved, WAA will conduct site evaluation, feasi- air and land space around the area proposed for use
bility, and environmental impact studies. Project as an aerospace launch and retrieval facility from
supporters are in the initial stages of obtaining an obstructions or hazards and incompatible land uses
FAA launch site license.160 Future projects include in the proximity of the Grant County International
adding orbital launch capabilities for RLVs, includ- Airport. Additional infrastructure development
ing a horizontal and vertical launch site. depends on launch customers’ needs and market
responses.162 At present, Spaceport Washington is
Spaceport Washington seeking launch operators. It will not apply for an
Spaceport Washington, a public and private FAA launch license until it has viable operations
partnership, has identified Grant County and a business plan.163
International Airport in central Washington, 280
West Texas Spaceport
kilometers (174 miles) east of Seattle, as the site of
a future spaceport. The airport (formerly Larson Air The Pecos County/West Texas Spaceport
Force Base and now owned and operated by the Development Corporation, established in mid-2001,
Port of Moses Lake) is used primarily as a testing is moving forward with the development of a
and training facility. Spaceport Washington propos- spaceport 29 kilometers (18 miles) southwest of
es to use Grant County International Airport for Fort Stockton, Texas. Spaceport infrastructure will
horizontal and vertical take-offs and horizontal include a launch site with a 4,570-meter (15,000-
landings of all classes of RLVs. This airport has a foot) safety radius, an adjacent recovery zone (193
4,100-meter (13,452-foot) main runway and a square kilometers or 500 square miles), payload
3,200-meter (10,500-foot) crosswind runway and is integration and launch control facilities, and the
certified as an emergency landing site for the Space Pecos County Airport runway (2,310-meters or
Shuttle. The spaceport does not have an official 7,500 feet) and hangar complex. The site has access
development plan yet, but the intended configura- to over 1,740 square kilometers (4,500 square
tion of the spaceport launch site will either be verti- miles) of unpopulated land and over 3,860 square
cal launch and horizontal recovery or horizontal kilometers (10,000 square miles) of underutilized
launch and recovery.161 national airspace. The West Texas Spaceport is
mainly an R&D site for UAVs and suborbital rock-
An approximately 121-square-kilometer ets. The primary users of this spaceport currently
(30,000-acre) potential vertical launch site has been are operators of unmanned air systems.
identified with multiple owners (both public and
A joint project with the school district has
made a technology center available for Pecos
County Aerospace Development Center users. The
Technology Center has multiple monitors, high-
speed Internet service, and full multiplexing capa-
bility. The Pecos County/West Texas Spaceport
Development Corporation has access to optical
tracking and high-speed video capability that can
record a vehicle’s flight up to tens of thousands of
feet (depending upon the size of the vehicle)
regardless of its speed.164 For the past two years,
Pecos County/West Texas Spaceport Development
Corporation has been involved in educational activ-
ities, under the framework of Texas Partnership for
Aerospace Education, to promote and support aca-
demic programs in aero-science and rocketry.
Spaceport Washington Aerial View
Regulatory Developments
In 2007, the FAA continued to enhance and refine risks of space travel generally and the risks of space
its regulations in three primary areas—private travel in the operator’s vehicle in particular. These
human spaceflight, experimental launches, and regulations also include training and general securi-
amateur rockets—in ways that balanced promotion ty requirements for space flight participants.
of a vigorous U.S. commercial space industry with
the need to safeguard the public. This section The regulations also establish requirements
reviews the most recent regulatory developments in for crew notification, medical qualifications and
these three areas. As this section is a summary, the training, and requirements governing environmental
FAA recommends that readers interested in further control and life support systems. In particular, the
details consult the regulatory documents in their regulations require a pilot of a launch or reentry
entirety, available online at http://ast.faa.gov. vehicle to possess and carry an FAA pilot certificate
with an instrument rating. Each crew member with
Private Human Space Flight a safety-critical role must possess and carry an FAA
second-class airman medical certificate. The regula-
On December 23, 2004, the President signed
tions require an operator to verify the integrated
into law the Commercial Space Launch Amendments
performance of a vehicle’s hardware and any soft-
Act of 2004 (CSLAA). The CSLAA promotes the
ware in an operational flight environment before
development of the emerging commercial space
allowing any space flight participant on board.
flight industry and makes the Federal Aviation
Verification must include flight testing.
Administration (FAA) responsible for regulating
commercial human space flight. Recognizing that
Since the human space flight regulations were
this is a fledgling industry, the law required a
issued, the FAA has begun to develop advisory cir-
phased approach in regulating commercial human
culars or guidance documents in the areas of human
space flight, with regulatory standards evolving as
space flight crew training and environmental con-
the industry matures.
trol and life support systems (ECLSS) for subor-
bital missions. These documents will provide guid-
On December 15, 2006, the FAA issued regu-
ance and acceptable means of meeting some of the
lations establishing requirements for crew and
human space flight regulations pertaining to crew
space flight participants involved in private human
training and ECLSS.
space flight. The new rules, which became effective
on February 13, 2007, maintain FAA’s commitment
Finally, the regulations establish financial
to protect the safety of the uninvolved public and
responsibility and waiver of liability requirements
call for measures that enable space flight partici-
to human space flight and experimental permits in
pants to make informed decisions about their per-
accordance with the CSLAA. The CSLAA requires
sonal safety. The CSLAA characterizes what is
crew and space flight participants to enter into a
commonly referred to as a passenger as a “space
reciprocal waiver of claims with the U.S. govern-
flight participant.” The statute defines this person to
ment. Furthermore, the CSLAA expressly excludes
mean “an individual, who is not crew, carried with-
space flight participants from eligibility for indem-
in a launch or reentry vehicle.” This characteriza-
nification against third party claims. Launches and
tion signifies that someone on board a launch or
reentries performed pursuant to a permit are also
reentry vehicle is not a typical passenger with typi-
excluded from eligibility for indemnification.
cal expectations of transport, but instead someone
going on an adventure ride.
Experimental Launch Permits
The regulations require launch vehicle opera- A number of entrepreneurs are committed to
tors to provide certain safety-related information the goal of developing and operating reusable
and identify what an operator must do to conduct a launch vehicles for private human space travel. In
licensed launch with a human on board. In addition, order to promote this emerging industry and to cre-
launch operators must inform passengers of the ate a clear legal, regulatory, and safety regime, the
2004 CSLAA also established an experimental per- under Chapter 701. Damages caused by
mit category for launching developmental reusable licensed activities, by contrast, are eligible
suborbital rockets on suborbital trajectories.i The for the provisional payment of claims to
FAA issued regulations implementing this alterna- the extent provided in an appropriation law
tive to a license on April 6, 2007. This section or other legislative authority.
details eligibility requirements for experimental
permits, notes how they differ from licenses, and • A permit must authorize an unlimited
discusses how they are implemented and administered. number of launches and reentries for a
particular reusable suborbital rocket
Eligibility design. Although a license can be
struc-tured to authorize an unlimited
To be eligible for an experimental permit, an
number of launches, no statutory mandate
applicant must propose to fly a reusable suborbital
to do so exists.
rocket for the following purposes:
• Under a permit, a launch operator is not
• Research and development to test new
required to demonstrate that the risk from a
design concepts, new equipment, or new
launch falls below specified quantitative
operating techniques;
criteria for collective and individual risk.
• Demonstration of compliance with require Under a license, a launch operator must.
ments as part of the process for obtaining a
• Under a permit, a launch operator is not
license; or
required to have a separate safety
• Crew training before obtaining a license organization or specific safety personnel.
for a launch or reentry using the design of Under a license, a launch operator must.
the rocket for which the permit would be
Safety Measures
issued.
The experimental permit regulations include a
Experimental Permit Compared to a License variety of safety measures to protect the public.
An experimental permit differs from a license The most important is an applicant-derived hazard
in several ways, including the following: analysis. A hazard analysis is a system safety engi-
neering tool that identifies and characterizes haz-
• The FAA must determine whether to issue ards and qualitatively assesses risks. An applicant
an experimental permit within 120 days of for a permit must perform a hazard analysis and
receiving an application. For a license, it is provide the results to the FAA. A permit applicant
180 days. uses this analysis to identify its risk elimination and
mitigation measures to reduce risk to an acceptable
• Under a permit, a reusable suborbital level. An applicant must show that selected risk
rocket may not be operated to carry elimination and mitigation measures will work.
property or human passengers for Applicants may demonstrate this through providing
compensation or hire. No such restriction flight demonstration test data; component, system,
applies for a license. or subsystem test data; inspection results; or analysis.
• Damages arising from a permitted launch Using the hazard analysis, most safety solu-
or reentry are not eligible for “indemnifi- tions are derived by the launch operators them-
cation,” the provisional payment of claims selves. The regulations do, however, contain a num-
i
The CSLAA defines a suborbital rocket as a vehicle, rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital
trajectory, whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of ascent. A suborbital trajectory is
defined in the CSLAA as the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof, whose vacuum
instantaneous impact point does not leave the surface of the Earth.
ber of operating requirements that the FAA believes • Must be large enough to contain each
are too important to omit. These include: planned trajectory and all expected vehicle
dispersions;
• Rest rules for vehicle safety operations per
sonnel • Must contain enough unpopulated or
sparsely populated area to perform key
• Pre-flight and post-flight operations flight-safety events, discussed below;
ii
An IIP is an impact point, following thrust termination of a launch vehicle, calculated in the absence of atmospheric drag
effects.
iii
An exclusion area is an FAA defined area on the ground that warrants special protection for safety or policy purposes.
jectory optimized for range and that all safety sys- launch operator. An operator must also report to the
tems failed. FAA certain safety-critical anomalies.
iv
An anomaly is an apparent problem or failure that affects a system, a subsystem, a process, support equipment, or facilities,
and that occurs during verification or operation.
tude achieved is greater than 7,600 meters (25,000 rocket, respectively. Further description of these
feet) above ground level (AGL). Under this order, categories follows below.
the FAA has the responsibility to regulate
unmanned rockets to ensure the safety of aircraft Class 1–Model Rockets
flying nearby and the safety of persons and proper- The proposed Class 1-Model Rockets would
ty on the ground. be defined as amateur rockets using less than 125
grams (4.4 ounces) of slow-burning propellant,
The FAA issued the first regulations applying
made primarily of paper, wood, or breakable plas-
to unmanned rocket operations in 1963. These regu-
tic, containing no substantial metal parts, and
lations required amateur rocket operators to provide
weighing no more than 454 grams (16 ounces),
advance notice to the FAA, and made such launches
including the propellant. This updated definition
subject to FAA approval. Amateur rockets have
differs from the existing definition in two ways:
grown bigger and now fly higher and farther com-
maximum propellant weight and operating limita-
pared to when those first regulations were pub-
tions. The maximum propellant weight would be
lished. They now have a greater potential of creat-
increased from the existing 113 grams (4 ounces) to
ing hazards beyond their launch points. As rocket
125 grams (4.4 ounces). Additionally, Class 1-
technologies have changed, regulations have been
Model Rockets would have to be “operated in a
amended to accommodate them—first in 1988, and
manner that does not create a hazard to persons,
later in 1994.
property, or other aircraft.”
The most recent round of amateur rocket reg- Class 2–Large Model Rockets
ulatory changes was set in motion on June 14,
2007, when the FAA published a Notice of The proposed definition of Class 2-Large
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Model Rockets would only differ from Class 1 in
Register. This action proposed a number of changes terms of maximum total weight. Class 2 would con-
in FAA’s regulations for unmanned rockets aimed at tinue to allow rockets weighing up to 1,500 grams
preserving the safety of amateur rocket activities, (53 ounces), including propellant, in contrast to the
addressing inconsistencies in the current regula- 454 grams (16 ounces) covered by Class 1.
tions, and improving the clarity of the regulations.
The public was invited to comment on the proposed Class 3–High-Power Rockets
changes. As of late 2007, the FAA was considering Class 3-High-Power Rockets would be
the public comments it received to determine how defined as amateur rockets other than model rockets
and when it may issue a final rule. or large model rockets that are propelled by a motor
or motors having a combined total impulse of
What the FAA Proposed 163,840 N-sec (36,818 lb-sec) or less. In terms of
Under the June 2007 NPRM, the FAA pro- motor class, this qualifies as a “Q motor.” The FAA
posed adding two new categories of amateur rocket would use total impulse as the distinguishing crite-
operations and amending the definitions of the rion for high-power rockets because total impulse is
existing two categories. As such, the new category a good measure of the size, power, and performance
structure would be numbered from Class 1 to Class of the rocket.
4. The two new categories would be Class 3 (high-
powered rockets) and Class 4 (advanced high- Rockets that would be considered Class 3
power rockets). These two new categories capture under the new definition currently operate under the
amateur rockets that require significant analyses on provisions for Large Model Rockets. These limita-
the part of the FAA to determine if they can be tions would remain unchanged, but two more limi-
safely launched and what operational constraints tations codifying current practice would be added.
might be necessary to preserve public safety. The The first of the new limitations would be that a per-
Class 1 and Class 2 rocket categories, meanwhile, son at least 18 years old must be present and in
would be slightly modified to incorporate more cur- charge of ensuring the safety of the operation. The
rent definitions of model rocket and large model second new limitation would require reasonable
precautions be available to report and control a fire. regulations. Once the FAA receives the waiver
(Although this is a current practice, it would be application, they usually contact the operator for
codified under the proposed rulemaking.) additional information. However, under the NPRM,
all information would be gathered during the initial
Class 4–Advanced High-Power Rockets waiver application. Thus both the FAA and the
Class 4-Advanced High-Power Rockets operators could save time and expense.
would include any amateur rockets that do not fall
Next Steps
under one of the other three classes definitions. In
general, these would be rockets with a combined The FAA is now reviewing the comments
total impulse above 163,840 N-sec (36,818 lb-sec), received on the NPRM. Some of these contain sug-
that is, a Q motor. However, the regulation would gestions for changes that amateur rocket operators
be written such that other, unforeseen operations or and others wish to see implemented before the rule
advancements in amateur rocket technology will be becomes final. When and if these proposed new
captured as Class 4. amateur rocket rules become final, the FAA will
publish them in the Federal Register.
The risk to the public from launches of this
category is often higher due to the larger amount of
propellant or stored energy within the vehicle. This
higher risk factor requires greater scrutiny. As
such, Class 4 would capture rockets more powerful
than those typically launched at amateur high-
power rocket events.
Information Requirements
Information requirements define data required
by the FAA to determine if a rocket can be safely
launched. Due to the low risk posed by Class 1 –
Model Rockets, operators of this class of rocket
would continue to be exempt from information
requirements. Operators of Class 2 – Large Model
Rockets would continue to provide Air Traffic
Control with their names and addresses, the highest
anticipated altitude, the location of the launch, and
the date, time, and duration of the launch event. Air
Traffic Control would then be in a position to notify
aircraft flying nearby of the rocket launches.
Endnotes
1 Google Lunar X PRIZE Competition Guidelines web- 12 Ray, Justin. “Confident Atlas rocket team ready to
page. X PRIZE Foundation. Accessed 19 November launch again”. Spaceflight Now, 7 October 2007.
2007. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/competi- http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av011/071007pre-
tion/guidelines. view.html. Accessed 6 November 2007.
2 Communication with SpaceX, 27 November 2007. 13 Sea Launch press release. “Sea Launch Concludes
3 “Armadillo Aerospace Nearly Wins Northrop Investigation of Launch Failure”. 11 June 2007.
Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.” 28 October 2007. http://www.sea-
X PRIZE Foundation press release. Accessed 19 launch.com/news_releases/nr_070611.html. Accessed 6
November 2007. http://www.xprize.org/llc/press- November 2007.
release/armadillo-aerospace-nearly-wins-northrop- 14 Communication with Sea Launch Company, 7
grumman-lunar-lander-challenge. November 2007.
4 Communication with Bigelow Aerospace, 7 December 15 Communication with ATK, 2 January 2008.
2007. Also see America’s Space Prize webpage. 16 Communication with Space Systems/Loral, 27
Bigelow Aerospace. Accessed 20 November 2007. November 2007.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/multiverse/space_pri
zeb.php. 17 E’Prime Aerospace Corp. press release. “E'Prime
Aerospace Corporation Receives Launch Site Policy
5 Centennial Challenges webpage. Updated 8 November Review Approval”. 5 November, 2007.
2007. NASA. Accessed 19 November 2007. http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=788716.
http://www.ip.nasa.gov/cc/index.htm. Accessed 5 November 2007.
6 “X PRIZE Foundation Announces Competitors for 18 Communication with Lockheed Martin Michoud
Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge.” 20 June Operations, 13 October 2006.
2007. X PRIZE Foundation. Accessed 29 November
2007. http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander- 19 Garvey Spacecraft Corporation. “Latest News”.
challenge/assets/FINAL_Wirefly_X_PRIZE_Cup_Tea http://www.garvspace.com/News.htm. Accessed 5
ms_Release_6-20-07.pdf. November 2007.
7 Peter Homer was subsequently contracted by a com- 20 Communication with Garvey Spacecraft Corporation, 7
mercial spacesuit developer, Orbital Outfitters, for November 2007.
work on their spacesuit. See Brian Berger, 21 Communication with Microcosm, Inc., 13 November
“Commercial Spacesuit Tailors Hire NASA Contest 2007.
Winner.” 16 November 2007. SPACE.com, Accessed 22 Schoneman, Scott et al. “Minotaur V Space Launch
18 December 2007. Vehicle for Small, Cost-Effecive Moon Exploration
http://www.space.com/news/0711116-private-space- Missions”. 21st Annual AIAA/USU Conference on
suits.html. Small Satellites, paper SSC07-III-2, 2007.
8 “NASA's Centennial Challenges to Advance 23 AirLaunch LLC press release. “AirLaunch LLC,
Technologies.” 28 August 2007. NASA press release DARPA, and U.S. Air Force Kickoff Phase 2C”. 16
07-182. Accessed 19 November 2007. July 2007.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/aug/HQ_0718 http://www.airlaunchllc.com/AirLaunch%20Press%20R
2_Space_Elevator_Games.html. elease%20Kickoff%20Phase%202C%20071607%20Fin
9 “Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources.” al.pdf. Accessed 5 November 2007.
Updated 16 May 2007. NASA. Accessed 19 November 24 Communication with AirLaunch LLC, 6 November
2007. http://www.ip.nasa.gov/cc/cc_challenges.htm. 2007.
10 “FY 2008 Budget Estimates.” NASA President’s Fiscal 25 Berger, Brian. “Taurus 2 Coming into Focus.” Space
Year 2008 NASA Budget Request. CASP-43. Accessed News, September 24, 2007, p. 1.
19 November 2007. http://www.nasa.gov/about/budg-
26 Communication with Zig Aerospace, 17 October 2006.
et/index.html.
27 Communication with Sea Launch Company, 7
11 Division B – Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
November 2007.
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.” Text of the House
Amendments to Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764 – 28 NASA press release. “NASA Awards Upper Stage
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Engine Contract for Ares Rockets”. 16 July 2007.
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Consolidated Appropriations http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jul/HQ_C070
Act, 2008). U.S. House of Representatives Committee 30_J2X_Contract.html. Accessed 5 November 2007.
on Rules website. Accessed 20 December 2007.
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/omni/jes/jesdivb.p
df. Page 113.
29 NASA press release. “NASA Selects Ares I Upper 43 Communication with Micro-Space, 2 January 2008.
Stage Production Contractor”. 28 August 2007. 44 X PRIZE Foundation. “Paragon Labs”.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/aug/HQ_C070 http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-
40_Ares_1_Upper_Stage_Contract.html. Accessed 5 challenge/team_profile_paragon_labs.php. Accessed 20
November 2007. December 2007.
30 Boeing press release. “Boeing Selected to Build 45 PlanetSpace. “Orbital Space Flight”. http://www.planet-
Instrument Unit Avionics for NASA's Ares I Crew space.org/lo/osf.htm. Accessed 20 December 2007.
Launch Vehicle”. 12 December 2007. http://www.boe-
ing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071212d_nr.html. 46 Rocketplane Global press release. “Rocketplane
Accessed 21 December 2007. Unveils New Suborbital Vehicle Design”. 26 October
2007.
31 Communication with Magellan Aerospace Corporation, http://www.rocketplaneglobal.com/press/20071026a.ht
9 November 2007. ml. Accessed 16 November 2007.
32 Nammo AS press release. “NAMMO successfully 47 Rocketplane Kistler press release. “Rocketplane Kistler
launches Hybrid Test Rocket from Andøya”. 8 May Completes NASA-COTS Milestone Ahead of
2007. Schedule.” 13 February 2007. http://www.rocket-
http://www.nammo.com/templates/page.aspx?id=406. planekistler.com/newsinfo/pressreleases/070213%20-
Accessed 5 November 2007. %20PRESS%20RELEASE%20-
33 UP Aerospace press release. “UP Aerospace, Inc. %20RpK%20Meets%20NASA%20Milestone%20Ahea
Successfully Flies Multi-faceted Space Mission.” 2 d%20of%20Schedule%200207.pdf. Accessed 17
May 2007. November 2007.
http://www.upaerospace.com/DigitalPressKit/UP_Aeros 48 NASA press release. “NASA to Open New
pace_Inc_Post-Launch_Press_Release.pdf. Accessed 5 Competition for Space Transportation Seed Money”. 18
November 2007. October 2007.
34 Communication with UP Aerospace, 7 November 2007. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_0722
35 X PRIZE Foundation. “Acuity Technologies” 8_COTS_competition.html. Accessed 17 November
http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander- 2007.
challenge/team_profile_acuity.php. Accessed 20 49 Communication with Virgin Galactic, 17 December
December 2007. 2007.
36 Armadillo Aerospace release. “We failed.” 30 October 50 SpaceDev press release. “SpaceDev Signs Space Act
2007. Agreement with NASA for Development of
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Ho Commercial Access to Space.” 18 June 2007.
me/News?news_id=350. Accessed 19 November 2007. http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=205.
37 Communication with Armadillo Aerospace, 20 Accessed 17 November 2007.
November 2007. 51 SpaceDev press release. “SpaceDev and United Launch
38 Benson Space Company press release. “Benson Space Alliance to Explore Launching the Dream Chaser
Improves Design of Its Spaceship”. 25 May 2007. Space Vehicle on an Atlas V Launch Vehicle.” 10 April
http://www.bensonspace.com/press_details.php?id=2. 2007.
Accessed 15 November 2007. http://www.spacedev.com/press_more_info.php?id=5.
Accessed 17 November 2007.
39 International Space Fellowship. “Interorbital Talk with
the Space Fellowship about Their New $1.2 Million 52 Space Access LLC press release. “Space Access Offers
Satellite Mission and Joining Forces with Vision One”. Major Expansion of Space Tourism Beginning January
27 November 2007. 2008”. 20 December 2007.
http://spacefellowship.com/News/?p=3806. Accessed http://www.individual.com/story.php?story=75237159.
19 December 2007. Accessed 20 December 2007.
40 Interorbital Systems. “Neptune”. http://www.interor- 53 SpaceX. Falcon 1 Launch Vehicle Payload User’s
bital.com/Neptune%20Page_1.htm. Accessed 19 Guide, Rev. 6. April 2007.
December 2007. http://www.spacex.com/Falcon%201%20Payload%20U
sers%20Guide.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2007.
41 Masten Space Systems. “XA-0.1 R.I.P.” 17 December
2007. http://masten-space.com/blog/?p=128. Accessed 54 SpaceX. “Demo Flight 2 Flight Review Update”. 15
19 December 2007. June 2007. http://www.spacex.com/F1-DemoFlight2-
Flight-Review.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2007.
42 X PRIZE Foundation. “Micro-Space”.
http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander- 55 SpaceX. “Falcon 9 Data Sheet” 6 April 2007.
challenge/team_profile_micro_space.php. Accessed 20 http://www.spacex.com/F9%20Data%20Sheet.pdf.
December 2007. Accessed 17 November 2007.
56 Communication with SpaceX, 27 November 2007.
57 SpaceX press release. “SpaceX Signs Deal for First 70 “NASA to Open New Competition for Space
Commercial Geostationary Satellite Launch”. 14 Transportation Seed Money.” 18 October 2007. NASA
September 2007. press release 07-228. Accessed 28 November 2007.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=29. Accessed http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_0722
17 November 2007. 8_COTS_competition.html.
58 SpaceX press release. “SpaceX Breaks Ground at Cape 71 Communication with SpaceX, 27 November 2007.
Canaveral’s Space Launch Complex 40”. 1 November 72 See company press releases and information for the
2007. http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=31. new COTS Phase 1 system proposal information:
Accessed 17 November 2007.
59 SpeedUp. “News”.
http://www.speedupworld.com/news.html. Accessed 20 Constellation Services International:
December 2007. “Constellation Services International and Space
Systems Loral Team On NASA COTS Proposal
60 Communication with TGV Rockets, 19 November Using a U.S. Version of CSI’s LEO EXPRESS
2007. Cargo System.” 11 December 2007. CSI news
61 t/Space. “Projects: Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV)”. release. Accessed 19 December 2007.
http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac- http://www.constellationservices.com/
tion=projects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C- Press_Release_20071211.pdf.
97F15F270F2B83AA. Accessed 20 December 2007.
62 X PRIZE Foundation. “Unresaonable Rocket”. PlanetSpace: “PlanetSpace, Lockheed Martin and
http://space.xprize.org/lunar-lander- ATK team up to bid on NASA COTS.” 21
challenge/team_profile_unreasonable_rocket.php. November 21, 2007. PlanetSpace press release.
Accessed 20 December 2007. Accessed 19 December 2007.
63 Doupe, Cole, et al. “Fully Reusable Access to Space http://www.planetspace.org/pdf/
Technology FAST”. 13 March 2007. PressRelease112107.pdf.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA467945&Location=U2&doc=
GetTRDoc.pdf. Accessed 17 November 2007. SpaceDev: SpaceDev Advanced Systems web
page. Accessed 19 December 2007.
64 Andrews Space press release. “Andrews Space to Work http://www.spacedev.com/
with US Air Force on FAST Program”. 19 March 2007. spacedev_advanced_systems.php
http://www.andrews-space.com/news.php?subsec-
tion=MjMw. Accessed 19 December 2007.
65 Lockheed Martin Michoud Operations. “Lockheed SPACEHAB: “SPACEHAB Responds to NASA
Martin Awarded $14 Million Contract on U.S. Air RFP Seeking Commercial ISS Resupply Means.”
Force Research Lab FAST Program.” 12 November 29 November 2007. SPACEHAB press release.
2007. Accessed 19 December 2007. http://www.space
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ssc/michou hab.com/news/2007/07_11_29.htm.
d/PressReleases/LOCKHEEDMARTINAWARD-
ED$14MILLIONCONTRACTONU.S.AIRFORCERE- t/Space: “t/Space enters COTS second round .”
SEARCHLABFASTPROGRAM11-12-07.pdf. November 29, 2007. t/Space News and Media
Accessed 19 December 2007. webpage. Accessed 19 December 2007.
66 Northrop Grumman Corporation. “Northrop Grumman http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac
to Help Air Force Develop, Demonstrate Technologies tion=news.view&newsid=8D34F05A-E7F7-11C1-
for Reusable Launch Vehicles”. 10 December 2007. 74E37AB2DBDA99CC.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releas-
es.html?d=132818. Accessed 19 December 2007. Andrews Space: “Andrews Space Reveals Cargo
67 Orion Crew Vehicle webpage. Updated 5 November Vehicle Design Work.” 12 December 2007.
2007. NASA Constellation Program. Accessed 29 Andrews Space press release. Accessed 19
November 2007. December 2007. http://www.andrews-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/ space.com/news.php?subsection=Mjk3.
index.html.
68 “Constellation Program: Astronaut Safety in a Launch 73 Lopez, C. Todd Staff Sgt., USAF. “Unmanned vehicle
Emergency. The Orion Launch Abort System.” NASA provides reusable test capabilities in space.” 17
Facts. FS-2007-07-136-LaRC. Accessed 29 November November 2006. Air Force Print News online.
2007. Accessed 28 November 2007.
69 “Constellation Program: America’s Spacecraft for a http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123032226.
New Generation of Explorers. The Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle”. NASA Facts. FS-2006-08-022-
JSC. Accessed 29 November 2007.
74 Shiga, David. “Bigelow Aerospace to offer $760 mil- 89 SpaceX press release. “SpaceX Completes
lion for spaceship.” 25 October 2007. New Scientist Development of Merlin Regeneratively Cooled Rocket
Space online. Accessed 22 November 2007. Engine.” SpaceX, 12 November 2007.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12836-bigelow- http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.j
aerospace-to-offer-760-million-for-spaceship.html. sp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071112005019
75 Communication with Bigelow Aerospace, 7 December &newsLang=en. Accessed 13 November 2007.
2007. 90 Communication with Space Exploration Technologies,
76 Communication with Space Exploration Technologies 27 November 2007.
Corporation, 27 November 2007. 91 SpaceX press release. “SpaceX Completes
77 Communication with Microcosm, Inc., 27 November Development of Merlin Regeneratively Cooled Rocket
2007. Engine.” SpaceX, 12 November 2007.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.j
78 Communication with ATK, Inc., 3 January 2008.
sp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071112005019
79 ATK press release. “ATK Receives $1.8 Billion &newsLang=en. Accessed 13 November 2007.
Contract to Develop and Support Test Flights for
92 NASA feature. “Methane Blast.” Science@NASA
NASA's Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle First Stage” 13
website, 4 May 2007.|
August 2007.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/04may_methan
http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releas-
eblast.htm. Accessed 13 November 2007.
es&item=739. Accessed 4 January 2008.
93 Grossman, Lev. “The Best Inventions of The Year.”
80 Communication with AirLaunch LLC, 23 November
Time Magazine, 12 November 2007, p. 78.
2007.
94 XCOR Aerospace press release. “ATK and XCOR
81 AirLaunch LLC press release. “AirLaunch LLC,
Successfully Complete Test Series
DARPA, and U.S. Air Force Kickoff Phase 2C.”
AirLaunchLLC, 16 July 2007. http://www.airlaunch- for NASA's 7,500 lbf-thrust LOX/Methane Workhorse
llc.com/News.htm. Accessed 13 November 2007. Engine”. XCOR Aerospace. 12 December 2007.
http://www.xcor.com/press-releases/2007/07-12-
82 Communication with Garvey Spacecraft Corporation,
12_ATK_and_XCOR_complete_LOX_methane_test-
19 November 2007.83 Northrop Grumman press
ing.html. Aaccessed 18 December 2007.
release. “Northrop Grumman Demonstrates New
Rocket Engine Design Using Oxygen and Methane 95 Boyle, Alan. “Rocket Racer Revealed”. Cosmic Log. 7
Propellants.” Northrop Grumman Corporation, 14 November 2007.
November 2007. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/07/45
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releas- 4487.aspx. Accessed 25 November 2007.
es.html?d=131378. accessed 13 December 2007. 96 Orion Propulsion Inc. press release. “Latest News -
84 NASA Facts Sheet. “The J–2X Engine”. Doc. October 2006.” Orion Propulsion Inc., October 2006.
#FS–2007–08–111–MSFC8–328472, 2007. http://orionpropulsion.com/latestnews.php. Accessed 11
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/187393main_j- October 2006.
2x_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed 27 November 2007. 97 Orion Proulsion Inc. press release. “Latest News:
85 NASA press release. “NASA's J-2X Powerpack Testing Innovative Thruster Module Successfully Tested” Orion
Status Report #1” NASA. 19 December 2007. Propulsion Inc. 7 December 2007. http://www.orion-
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releas propulsion.com/. Accessed 20 December 2007.
es/2007/07-143.html. Accessed 20 December 2007. 98 Communication with Space Exploration Technologies,
86 Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne press release. “Pratt & 27 November 2007.
Whitney Rocketdyne Awarded $1.2 Billion NASA 99 Orbital press release. “Orbital To Provide Launch Abort
Contract for J-2X Ares Rocket Engine”. 18 July 2007. System For NASA’s Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle”
http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext- 1 September 2006.
templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2e35288d1c83c010V http://www.orbital.com/newsinfo/release.asp?prid=570.
gnVCM1000000881000aRCRD&prid=e480c230314d3 Accessed 26 November 2007.
110VgnVCM100000c45a529f. Accessed 20 November 100 NASA press release. “NASA to Break Ground for
2007. Orion Test Pad at White Sands, N.M.” 8 November
87 SpaceX press release. “SpaceX Completes 2007.
Development of Merlin Regeneratively Cooled Rocket http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/nov/HQ_M07
Engine.” SpaceX, 12 November 2007. 158_ESMD_White_Sands_Groundbreaking.html.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.j Accessed 4 January 2008.
sp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20071112005019 101 Orbital fact sheet. “Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle
&newsLang=en. Accessed 13 November 2007. Launch Abort System (LAS)” Orbital Sciences
88 SpaceX press release. “SpaceX Completes Corporation. 2006.
Development of Merlin Regeneratively Cooled Rocket http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/LAS_Fa
Engine.” SpaceX, 12 November 2007. ct.pdf#search="launch abort system. Accessed 26
November 2007.
102 Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne press release. “Pratt & 114 Ibid.
Whitney Rocketdyne’s Revolutionary Scramjet Engine 115 Communication with Space Florida, 26 November
Successfully Powers First X-51A Simulated Flight” 2007.
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. 30 April 2007.
http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext- 116 Ibid.
templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2e35288d1c83c010V 117 Ibid.
gnVCM1000000881000aRCRD&prid=0c8381dc89e22 118 Ibid.
110VgnVCM100000c45a529f____. Accessed 13
119 Ibid.
December 2007.
120 Ibid.
103 Andrews Space Inc. press release. “Andrews Awarded
DARPA/AFRL Contract to Demonstrate In-Flight 121 Communication with Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport,
Propellant Generation For Advanced Space 8 November 2007.
Transportation.” Andrews Space, Inc., 27 March 2006. 122 Ibid.
http://www.andrews-space.com/news.php?subsec- 123 Ibid.
tion=MjA1. Accessed 16 October 2006.
124 Ibid.
104 Communication with Andrews Space, Inc. 21
December 2007. 125 Communication with Mojave Airport, 17 October 2006.
105 Air Launch LLC press release. “Operational C-17A 126 David, Leonard. “XCOR Rocket Plane Soars into
Used to Break Another Record with Air Launch in Record Book.” SPACE.com, 3 December 2005.
DARPA/Air Force Falcon Small Launch Vehicle http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/051203_xcor_fl
Program.” Air Launch LLC, 27 July 2006. www.cali- ight.html. Accessed 28 December 2005.
forniaspaceauthority.org/images/pdfs/pr060801-1.pdf. 127 Boyle, Alan. “Regulators OK Oklahoma Spaceport.”
Accessed 10 October 2006. MSNBC, 13 June 2006.
106 Communication with AirLaunch LLC., 23 November http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13304491. Accessed 2
2007. November 2006.
107 Andrews Space press release. “Andrews Space 128 Ibid.
Develops Advanced Thermal Protection Materials for 129 Communication with Oklahoma Space Industry
Reentry Applications”. Andrews Space. 20 December Development Authority, 26 October 2006.
2007. http://www.andrews-space.com/news.php?sub- 130 Ibid.
section=Mjk4. Accessed 20 December 2007.
131 Communication with Cape Canaveral Air Force
108 Boeing press release. “Boeing Completes Prototype Station, 30 September 2005.
Heat Shield for NASA Orion Spacecraft” Boeing, 13
132 Department of the Air Force, Edwards Air Force Base.
November 2007.
“Memorandum for Government Agencies, Public
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2007/q4/071113a_nr.h
Officials, Libraries, Public Groups, and Interested
tml. Accessed 20 November 2007.
Individuals.” U.S. Air Force, December 2002.
109 NASA press release. “Success for Second Ares Main http://www.ealev.com. Accessed 7 November 2006.
Parachute Test” 15 November 2007.
133 NASA Press Release (58-06). “NASA Requests
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multi-
Proposals for Exploration Park Developer.” NASA, 1
media/photos07-126_2.html. Accessed 20 December
September 2006.
2007.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releas-
110 Alliant Techsystems press release. “World’s largest es/2006/release-20060901.html. Accessed 3 November
Rocket Stage Recovery Parachute Test is Successful” 2 2006.
October 2007.
134 NASA Press Release (04-06). “GlobalFlyer Aircraft
http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releas-
Arrival Set for This Week.” NASA, 9 January 2006.
es&item=752. Accessed 14 November 2007.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releas-
111 “Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed es/2006/release-20060109.html. Accessed 3 November
Blue Origin West Texas Launch Site.” FAA/AST, 2006.
August 2006.
135 NASA Press Release (06-132). “NASA and ZERO-G
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offic
Agree on Regular Shuttle Runway Use.” NASA, 4
es/ast/media/20060829_Blue_Origin_EA_Signed.pdf.
April 2006.
Accessed 08 November 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releas-
112 “AST Issues First Experimental Permit for a Reusable es/2006/release-20060404.html. Accessed 3 November
Suborbital Rocket to Blue Origin.” FAA/AST, 25 2006.
September 2006.
http://ast.faa.gov/Exper_Permit_Blue_Origin.htm.
Accessed 8 November 2006
.113 Communication with California Spaceport, 21
November 2007.
Photo Credits
Page 6 Page 19
Lunar rover mockup at launch of Google Lunar X Oriole, courtesy of DTI Associates
PRIZE, courtesy of the X PRIZE Foundation
Terrier-Orion, courtesy of DTI Associates
Page 7
Page 20
Flight of Armadillo Aerospace’s MOD-1 vehicle for the
SpaceLoft XL, courtesy of UP Aerospace
2007 Northrup Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge,
courtesy of Armadillo Aerospace Page 21
Page 9 Tiger and Cardinal, courtesy of Acuity Technologies
Atlas V, courtesy of United Launch Alliance Page 22
Delta II, courtesy of United Launch Alliance MOD-1, courtesy of Armadillo Aerospace
Page 10 BSC Spaceship, courtesy of Benson Space Company
Delta IV Heavy, courtesy of United Launch Alliance Blue Origin’s Goddard prototype vehicle, courtesy of
Blue Origin
Page 11
Minotaur, courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corporation Page 23
Sea Star, courtesy of Interorbital Systems
Pegasus XL, courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corporation
Neptune, courtesy of Interorbital Systems
Taurus, courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corporation
Page 24
Page 12
XA 1.0, courtesy of Masten Space Systems
Zenit-3SL, courtesy of Sea Launch Company, LLC
Crusader LL, courtesy of Micro-Space
ALV, courtesy of Alliant Techsystems
Page 25
Page 13
Volkon, courtesy of Paragon Labs
Aquarius vehicle illustration, courtesy of Space
Systems/Loral Silver Dart, courtesy of PlanetSpace
Aquarius mission profile, courtesy of Space Page 26
Systems/Loral Rocketplane XP, courtesy of Rocketplane Global
Eaglet and Eagle, courtesy of E’Prime Aerospace K-1, courtesy of Rocketplane Kistler
Corporation
Page 27
Page 14
SpaceShipTwo, courtesy of Virgin Galactic
FALCON SLV, courtesy of Lockheed Martin
Corporation Dream Chaser, courtesy of SpaceDev
Prospector 8A, courtesy Joe Mullen/Garvey Spacecraft Page 28
Corporation Skyhopper, courtesy of Space Access LLC
Page 15 Falcon 1, courtesy of Space Exploration Technologies
Sprite SLV, courtesy of Microcosm, Inc. Corporation
Minotaur IV, courtesy of Orbital Sciences Corporation Page 29
Page 16 Falcon 9, courtesy of Space Exploration Technologies
Corporation
QuickReach, courtesy of AirLaunch, LLC
Laramie Rose, courtesy of SpeedUp
Page 17
Page 30
Zenit-3SLB, courtesy of Sea Launch Company, LLC
Michelle-B, courtesy of TGV Rockets, Inc
Ares I, courtesy of NASA
Crew Transfer Vehicle, courtesy of t/Space
Ares V, courtesy of NASA
Burning Splinter, courtesy of of Unreasonable Rocket
Page 18
Black Brant, courtesy of Bristol Aerospace Limited
Page 31 Page 44
Xerus, courtesy of XCOR Aerospace, Inc. Andrews ACES test, courtesy of Andrews Space, Inc.
Space Shuttle, courtesy of NASA QuickReach Drop Test, courtesy of AirLaunch LLC
Page 33 Page 45
Orion CEV, courtesy of Lockheed Martin Corporation Prototype heat shield, courtesy of The Boeing
Company
Page 34
SpaceX Dragon, courtesy of Space Exploration Parachute testing at Yuma Proving Ground, courtesy of
Technologies Corporation NASA
Page 35 Page 49
SpaceX Dragon crew concept, courtesy of Space California Spaceport SLC-8, courtesy of California
Exploration Technologies Corporation Spaceport
X-37 concept, courtesy of NASA Space Florida SLC-46 MAS, courtesy of Space Florida
Page 36 Page 50
External view of Genesis II with the Earth in the back- FTG-03 Launch from Kodiak Launch Complex, cour-
ground, courtesy of Bigelow Aerospace tesy of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency
Page 37 Page 51
Bigelow module concept, courtesy of Bigelow NFIRE launch from Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport,
Aerospace courtesy of Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport
Page 38 Page 53
Falcon 9 first stage, courtesy of Space Exploration Mojave Air and Space Port, courtesy of Mojave Air and
Technologies Corporation Space Port
Page 63
Chugwater aerial view, courtesy of Chugwater
Spaceport
Page 64
Cutaway view of Spaceport America facility, courtesy
of Spaceport America
Page 65
Rocket launch from Spaceport Sheboygan, courtesy of
Rockets for Schools
Page 66
Spaceport Washington aerial view, courtesy of
Spaceport Washington